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

[John1956]

What about the freedom of movement of the millions of poor living within one meter of sea level. Are you going to give them the freedom to share your land when rising seas flood them out?

So where is all the flooding in the summertime, when about half of the arctic ice melts? The beach in December is like the beach in August. What a farce.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So where is all the flooding in the summertime, when about half of the arctic ice melts? The beach in December is like the beach in August. What a farce.

Ice floating on water does not raise sea level when it melts. Only ice sitting over land does that.

If you don’t believe me, try this experiment. Take a glass of water about 3/4 full. Add 4 ice cubes and note the level of the water on the side of the glass. Then wait for few hours for the ice to melt. You will see that the level of the water on the side of the glass is exactly the same as it was when the ice cubes were floating.

 

[John1956]

Yes, I tried that experiment and it turned out as you said. We agree on that.

So ice should melt on land too in the summer, hence, my question remains.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, I tried that experiment and it turned out as you said. We agree on that.

So ice should melt on land too in the summer, hence, my question remains.

The answer is that it is not true that half the ice sitting over land melts in the summer. Plus, remember that when it is summer at the North Pole it is winter at the South Pole. So seasonal meltings and refreezings at the two poles balance each other out. The sea level will only rise when the overall total of ice over all the globe at once melts. That happens slowly, not on a repeating yearly basis.

 

[estesbob]

The answer is that it is not true that half the ice sitting over land melts in the summer. Plus, remember that when it is summer at the North Pole it is winter at the South Pole. So seasonal meltings and refreezings at the two poles balance each other out. The sea level will only rise when the overall total of ice over all the globe at once melts. That happens slowly, not on a repeating yearly basis.

How can they balance each other out if the North Pole is not over land?

 

[John1956]

The answer is that it is not true that half the ice sitting over land melts in the summer.

Your’re right: It could be 3/4 melted: npr.org/2012/09/11/160957196/astonishing-artic-ice-melt-sets-new-record

Plus, remember that when it is summer at the North Pole it is winter at the South Pole. So seasonal meltings and refreezings at the two poles balance each other out. The sea level will only rise when the overall total of ice over all the globe at once melts. That happens slowly, not on a repeating yearly basis.

Are you making this stuff up as you go? Temps at the South Pole are well below zero, even in the summer: polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/weather.html

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How can they balance each other out if the North Pole is not over land?

There is Greenland. The Northern Hemisphere is not completely devoid of ice sitting on top of land. In any case, only a small fraction of the total ice sitting over land melts each year. And some of that is cancelled out by snow falling in the opposite pole. So it is not surprising that the beaches are not flooded each year, which was John1956’s question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your’re right: It could be 3/4 melted: npr.org/2012/09/11/160957196/astonishing-artic-ice-melt-sets-new-record

I was speaking of the ice sitting over land. This report you cited is about ice that was floating. As we already saw, it has no effect on sea level.

Are you making this stuff up as you go? Temps at the South Pole are well below zero, even in the summer: polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/weather.html

It doesn’t have to be above freezing at the South Pole for the antarctic to lose land ice. Glaciers slide down the land and into the sea and melt there. In any case, there is no reason to expect huge seasonal sea level variations, even if the sea level is gradually going up over many years.

 

[KSU]

I agree. It is everyone else who is jumping all over his accusations about the Tea Party involvement. I couldn’t care less. Oh, I care, but some body’s personality faults is not the issue here.

No one has proven to me that there is subterfuge in the Pontifical Academy. **Then you haven’t read the links–PASS used the cover of a Vatican agency; a supposedly unbiased group of social scientists who find the truth in order to advise the Church regarding current economics, sociology, law and political science issues. Its administrators, however, have shown themselves to be a politically biased defender of UN anti-Catholicism. Even the neutral-to-a-fault Phil Lawer was stunned. ** You should be more careful about throwing around irresponsible accusations ** My friend, you won’t change the subject by resorting to ad hominems, and it’s not conducive to debate. ** - which is, oddly enough, just what you are accusing the Pontifical Academy of doing. Again, the PASS administrators’ use of ad hominems is not the issue, and I am not “throwing around irresponsible accusations” of their resorting to it; their own words have been reported in the links. Please stop trying to change the subject. Remember, this is a part of your Church that you are demeaning. You just won’t stop with the ad hominem attacks; are you trying to get this thread shut down? I don’t have to demean PASS. As Phil Lawer stated: “I worried that the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was pushing the Vatican into needless and divisive political controversy. Now I’m afraid the same Pontifical Academy is pushing itself into disgrace.” Moreover, Pass is not a part of the Magisterium; it is (thanks be to God) autonomous

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then you haven’t read the links…

You mean the opinion piece in The Week? I do not have to conform my opinion to that of Peter Weber.

(By the way, you make it very hard to respond when you embed all your responses into my quotation, just setting it off in bold. Please separate your comments from those you are quoting with appropriate q u o t e ] and / q u o t e ] tags.)

My friend, you won’t change the subject by resorting to ad hominems, and it’s not conducive to debate.

It is not an ad hominem to call your accusations irresponsible.

…their own words have been reported in the links.

There were a lot of people quoted in that link. I don’t which “they” you mean, or which words of theirs you think are so conclusive.

You just won’t stop with the ad hominem attacks; are you trying to get this thread shut down? I don’t have to demean PASS.

If you don’t have to demean PASS then why are you doing it? Or maybe denigrate is a better word for it?

As Phil Lawer stated: “I worried that the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences was pushing the Vatican into needless and divisive political controversy. Now I’m afraid the same Pontifical Academy is pushing itself into disgrace.” Moreover, Pass is not a part of the Magisterium; it is (thanks be to God) autonomous

I don’t have to conform my opinion to that of Phil Lawer either.

 

[John1956]

It doesn’t have to be above freezing at the South Pole for the antarctic to lose land ice. Glaciers slide down the land and into the sea and melt there. In any case, there is no reason to expect huge seasonal sea level variations, even if the sea level is gradually going up over many years.

So no reason to expect coastal cities to flood either due to a 1.5 degrees increase in a “global temperature” in the last 150 years.

What’s that you say? It could get worse? By another 1.5 degrees in the next 150 years? Yes, and then cycle back downward again too.

A farce dressed in guesswork.

 

[John1956]

It doesn’t have to be above freezing at the South Pole for the antarctic to lose land ice. Glaciers slide down the land and into the sea and melt there. In any case, there is no reason to expect huge seasonal sea level variations, even if the sea level is gradually going up over many years.

So no reason to expect coastal cities to flood either due to a 1.5 degrees increase in a “global temperature” in the last 150 years.

What’s that you say? It could get worse? By another 1.5 degrees in the next 150 years? Yes, and then cycle back downward again too.

A farce supported by guesswork.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So no reason to expect coastal cities to flood either due to a 1.5 degrees increase in a “global temperature” in the last 150 years.

What’s that you say? It could get worse? By another 1.5 degrees in the next 150 years? Yes, and then cycle back downward again too.

A farce supported by guesswork.

Why don’t you do some research and find out where the sea level projections are coming from rather than just declaring them a farce without knowing the facts.

 

[John1956]

Why don’t you do some research and find out where the sea level projections are coming from rather than just declaring them a farce without knowing the facts.

So you make the claim - that rising seas from GWF (global warming farce) will flood the poor along the coast, without providing any evidence, then tell me to check it out. Too funny. Suffice to say that: a) it is up to the one making the claim to substantiate it, and b) I am under no obligation to verify your claim.

By the way, projections (your term) are not facts (also your term). That is the problem with global warming alarmists - they think their predictions = facts.

 

[John1956]

Why don’t you do some research and find out where the sea level projections are coming from rather than just declaring them a farce without knowing the facts.

So you make the claim - that rising seas from GWF (global warming farce) will flood the poor along the coast, without providing any evidence, then tell me to check it out. Too funny. Suffice to say that it is up to the one making the claim (you) to substantiate it.

By the way, projections (your term) are not facts (also your term). That is the problem with global warming alarmists - they think their predictions = facts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you make the claim - that rising seas from GWF (global warming farce) will flood the poor along the coast, without providing any evidence, then tell me to check it out. Too funny. Suffice to say that it is up to the one making the claim (you) to substantiate it.

By the way, projections (your term) are not facts (also your term). That is the problem with global warming alarmists - they think their predictions = facts.

Wasn’t it you that thought that arctic ice melts would necessarily affect sea level? I just think you ought to get a little better handle on high school physics before making claims that are unknown to PhD scientists. That is what I meant by learning the facts.

 

[KSU]

You mean the opinion piece in The Week?

**No, of course I don’t mean the piece in The Week. I mean the June 4, 2015 article at catholicculture.org/comme…tn.cfm?id=1092 entitled “A Vatican official’s disgraceful diatribe”. It concerns statements by PASS officials demeaning competent, respected scientists and others, such as those of us in this thread, who disagree with PASS about MMGW .

CatholicCulture.org is a very well respected, totally nonpolitical, orthodox Catholic news site.

So, this excerpt from that June 4th article was especially shocking:
"But the PASS leadership took another step in the wrong direction when Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of the PASS, answered questions about why the conference had not included critics of the prevailing climate-change theories. In an ill-informed and ill-tempered response, the archbishop claimed that the Tea Party is the main force behind such criticism, and that all scientists who question the prevailing theory are paid by the oil industry and other powerful lobbies. He went on to deny that the UN leadership (which has been heavily involved in the climate-change discussion) has backed the worldwide drive for abortion and contraception. On all of these points—which are matters of fact, not opinion—Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo is simply, completely, demonstrably wrong. "

Now, you can continue to ignore the article and attempt to change the subject by ad hominen attacks while waiting for the ice caps to melt, but it will get you no converts to MMGW. **

 

[John1956]

Wasn’t it you that thought that arctic ice melts would necessarily affect sea level?

No. I was mocking doomers and gloomers such as yourself who claim GWF (global warming farce) would cause the seas to rise and flood the poor people out of their homes.

I just think you ought to get a little better handle on high school physics before making claims that are unknown to PhD scientists. That is what I meant by learning the facts.

I just think you ought to get a little better handle on reality before you make wild and unsubstantiated claims (about GWF flooding poor people out of their homes).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, of course I don’t mean the piece in The Week. I mean the June 4, 2015 article at catholicculture.org/comme…tn.cfm?id=1092 entitled “A Vatican official’s disgraceful diatribe”. It concerns statements by PASS officials demeaning competent, respected scientists and others, such as those of us in this thread, who disagree with PASS about MMGW .

CatholicCulture.org is a very well respected, totally nonpolitical, orthodox Catholic news site.
That may be, but the article you quoted was an opinion piece by Phil Lawler, who failed to convince me of the “surprising level of subterfuge and political, unprofessional bias of the top two administrators of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences”. You can’t just expect everyone to accept as fact the opinion of someone who happens to agree with you, no matter how well respected that person is.

Now, you can continue to ignore the article…

 

[Abynissa]

It’s amazing why people are not concerned about the possibility of global warning. Why wouldn’t people be concerned about the welfare of the planet they are living on unless it’s the hundreds of millions of dollars be poured into think tanks, websites and social media by the Koch Brothers.

Glaciers melting and disappearing all over the earth. polar caps diminishing causing less reflection of sunlight back into the atmosphere. The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming regions on Earth, with a temperature rise of 2.5°C over the last 50 years. The larsen ice shelf is diminishing both above and below sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150513083739.htm

In Science the most prestigious scientific journal in the world that is peer reviewed stated “A new study published online Thursday in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th century.”
NOAA

With the amazon forests being cut down by multi-corporations for mineral exploration and extraction only exacerbates the problem. So why is there such an attack on global warming? Is it the Koch brothers and their ilk?

I observe 100-200 Bakken oil train cars 8-16 times a week, and the same amount of coal trains but this time per day going through my area. Where are all these natural resources going? To fuel the economic engine of a COMMUNIST country, China. The Keystone pipeline is to be outsourced to where? China. The global multi-national corporations are exporting all our natural resources and our jobs to a COMMUNIST country. China, who is exploiting third world countries, gobbling up all their natural resources at an alarming rate. China, a country who is diametrically opposed to us in every sense of the word. This is called unfettered capitalism. So don’t scream about socialism when you have capitalists selling off our jobs, technology and natural resources to support communism!

So people on here banter about words like capitalism, socialism, liberal, conservative without realizing the fact that billionaires and corporations are funding various candidates for office on both sides so it really doesn’t matter who gets into office. They have an agenda, These billionaires expect a return on their investment.

-capesh?