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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That may be, but the article you quoted was an opinion piece by Phil Lawler…I am not ignoring that opinion piece. I read it. I just don’t agree with the opinion expressed.
Click to expand...
Opinion? Here are a few of many UN calls for abortion ignored by Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of PASS/PAS. The chancellor simply ignored those well-know calls when he responded to a question linked to by Lawer at firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/05/the-wrong-way-to-respond-to-critics

September 25, 2013
The UN general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, said the post-2015 goals should particularly focus on improving the lives of marginalised groups, and empowering women…
"It needs to be rights-based, with particular emphasis on women, young people and marginalised groups. And it must protect the planet’s resources, emphasise sustainable consumption and production and support action to address climate change. theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/25/new-development-goals-un-general-assembly

May 6, 2014

…the United Nations has trained its cross-hairs on the Catholic Church by saying the Vatican’s anti-abortion stance “psychological torture” against women should be repealed at once…
truthrevolt.org/news/un-calls-vaticans-pro-life-stance-psychological-torture

October 30, 2014
Under the guise of advancing what the United Nations calls “gender equality” and “sustainable development,” a new report by the UN Women agency is again pushing global abortion on demand, more sterilization programs and population-control schemes, massive government interference in family life, and much more"…
The report, published by the UN “Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women,” claims to be a “survey” of the supposedly “important links” between “gender equality” and “sustainable development”…
The notion of human “sustainability,” for instance, purports to deal with making sure that “Mother Earth” can continue to sustain humanity into the future. The idea is underpinned largely by imagined problems justified by refuted “science,” such as theories on “man-made global warming” (previously global cooling), “overpopulation,” and “overconsumption"…
thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/19422-un-women-pushes-global-abortion-for-sustainable-population

Nov. 9, 2014
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a report first issued last September recommended that the United Nations provide women with “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services” in refugee camps in Syria, Iraq and Sudan – including abortion…
catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=57582
 
KSU said:
Opinion? Here are a few of many UN calls for abortion ignored by Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of PASS/PAS…
Click to expand...
The author did correctly cite some facts about abortion, but the opinion he offered about the overall inappropriateness of the works of PASS was clearly an opinion. Here are some key phrases you would never see in an unbiased news article:

“religious leaders should not…”

“PASS leadership took another step in the wrong direction when they…”

“vituperative attack”

“shocking diatribe”

“…unworthy of a social scientist…”

“…the next thing (she) writes should be an apology or a resignation”

You can’t seriously deny this is an opinion piece, with a strong opinion at that. Mr. Lawler was not even trying to disguise his piece as news and would himself would be surprised you thought his piece was not an opinion.
 
Abynissa said:
It’s amazing why people are not concerned about the possibility of global warning.
Click to expand...
Few would argue that the climate changes, that it has in the past and will do so in the future. Speaking for myself, I have not seen a convincing attribution argument. There is a lot we don’t understand about so-called natural variability, or the influence of man on the climate. The energy balance is not well enough understood, other than in a conceptual manner. The latest NOAA press release, which was celebrated and sensationalized by NOAA itself, is only one study that is at odds with other observational data sets.

It would be fair to say that I am skeptical, after the last 25 years of climate theater, choreographed by activist scientists, cloaked in the righteousness of environmental concern. There are serious shortcomings in the models used to simulate the climate. Ordinarily these would not be of concern to the public, but since people are bound and determined to use these things to shape public policy, then they are open to scrutiny, and the organizations who create them need to answer for their performance in the same way that any other piece of mission critical software. I claim it is mission critical because it has the potential to be used for policy decisions that affect hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of millions, if not more, lives. A bit of accountability is needed here.
 
KSU said:
Opinion? Here are a few of many UN calls for abortion ignored by Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the chancellor of PASS/PAS. The chancellor simply ignored those well-know calls when he responded to a question linked to by Lawer at firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/05/the-wrong-way-to-respond-to-critics

September 25, 2013
The UN general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, said the post-2015 goals should particularly focus on improving the lives of marginalised groups, and empowering women…
"It needs to be rights-based, with particular emphasis on women, young people and marginalised groups. And it must protect the planet’s resources, emphasise sustainable consumption and production and support action to address climate change. theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/25/new-development-goals-un-general-assembly

May 6, 2014

…the United Nations has trained its cross-hairs on the Catholic Church by saying the Vatican’s anti-abortion stance “psychological torture” against women should be repealed at once…
truthrevolt.org/news/un-calls-vaticans-pro-life-stance-psychological-torture

October 30, 2014
Under the guise of advancing what the United Nations calls “gender equality” and “sustainable development,” a new report by the UN Women agency is again pushing global abortion on demand, more sterilization programs and population-control schemes, massive government interference in family life, and much more"…
The report, published by the UN “Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women,” claims to be a “survey” of the supposedly “important links” between “gender equality” and “sustainable development”…
The notion of human “sustainability,” for instance, purports to deal with making sure that “Mother Earth” can continue to sustain humanity into the future. The idea is underpinned largely by imagined problems justified by refuted “science,” such as theories on “man-made global warming” (previously global cooling), “overpopulation,” and “overconsumption"…
thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/19422-un-women-pushes-global-abortion-for-sustainable-population

Nov. 9, 2014
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a report first issued last September recommended that the United Nations provide women with “comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services” in refugee camps in Syria, Iraq and Sudan – including abortion…
catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=57582
Click to expand...
There will always be people who prefer form over substance, a call for a more “refined” discourse. A lot of the time that works. Then there are times where direct and unvarnished communications must be employed, and I fear we are in those times. The Chancellor may or may not apologize for his choice of “direct communication,” but he is not immune from criticism for it; whats good for the goose…
 
Ender said:
It is rare that a discussion so clearly includes a comparison of apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
It’s also rare when someone tries to demonstrate that technology is unviable basing on complete misunderstanding of the relevant market.
Ender said:
If solar was (commercially) cheap, Solyndra wouldn’t have gone bankrupt.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly backwards. A manufacturer does not go out of business when their product is expensive, it goes out of business when the product can be purchased cheaper elsewhere. Which is exactly what happened once the Chinese flooded the market with cheap c-Si panels. Solyndra went out of business because, despite the government subsidy, the $/kWh ratio for their CIGS panels was worse than the $/kWh ratio of Chinese c-Si panels.

If solar panels were a luxury product then Solyndra would have thrived, because luxury consumers can afford to overpay for marginal performance gains. But your typical PV customer today is a German farmer who puts these things on the roof of his barn, and all he cares about is $/kWh.
Ender said:
Given that they couldn’t make a go of it even with massive government support your assertion does not fit with what has been observed.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Solyndra should have never been subsidized in the first place. If there was a clear business case for CIGS panels, then Solyndra’s investors would have simply built the fab in China, and undercut Chinese c-Si producers while reaping comparatively larger margins. Instead, they have built the fab in California, which is the most expensive place in the world to build a semiconductor fab: expensive labor, high taxes and high environmental standards.

The amazing thing about Solyndra is not that they went bankrupt – it’s that someone was dumb enough to bankroll a company which was doing everything wrong.
Ender said:
IThe question was about the existence of solar farms.
Click to expand...
Asking about solar farms again show that you fundamentally don’t understand PV.

PV farms are comparatively few, because the beauty of PV is that it can be decentralized. Why build a farm and pay for energy transmission, when you can simply put the panels on your roof, and make your own power?
 
There’s lots of room for - if not outright denial, then serious questions and push-back on the “warmists.” There’s a news story today that in 2008 ABC news predicted that New York City would be underwater due to “climate change” by - wait for it - June 2015.

If “climate change” were a new prescription drug, the FDA would never approve it, given its background of fudged numbers, altered data, wrong predictions, discounting of hard facts that didn’t agree with the “climate change narrative,” etc. To say nothing of the fact that when there are bad storms, “climate change” is pointed to; when there are NO storms despite predictions, then it must be “climate change.” When the weather is severely unusually cold, it’s “global warming” somehow (just not there, as in New England last Winter). And when the weather is unusually hot, well that’s de facto “proof” of “climate change,” eh?

I’d be willing to listen to honest scientists, really, but the current crop of Al Gore acolytes is the Laurel and Hardy of climatologists and have lost all credibility in my view.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I would interested to see what your list of “credible” scientists is.
Click to expand...
It won’t make any difference if he does or doesn’t.

As we have seen many times over the years in these MMGW threads, if someone touts a scientist’s view, the MMGW people have already generated a site that purports to discredit him. The left does not brook dissent. It sort of reminds one of the New York Times “scandal” about Marco Rubio having gotten four speeding tickets in 18 years or whatever it was. To enrich it, of course, they had to add his wife’s 13 tickets.

It’s all so “yesterday”, and would be forgotten by now in the absence of global warming except that Obama still means to make our utility bills “skyrocket” in its name.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It won’t make any difference if he does or doesn’t.

As we have seen many times over the years in these MMGW threads, if someone touts a scientist’s view, the MMGW people have already generated a site that purports to discredit him. The left does not brook dissent. It sort of reminds one of the New York Times “scandal” about Marco Rubio having gotten four speeding tickets in 18 years or whatever it was. To enrich it, of course, they had to add his wife’s 13 tickets.

It’s all so “yesterday”, and would be forgotten by now in the absence of global warming except that Obama still means to make our utility bills “skyrocket” in its name.
Click to expand...
Basically the warmist definition of credible scientists is anybody that believes in AGW
 
PaulfromIowa said:
It is a very grave error for bishops to involve themselves in partisan politics and scientific debates, with the exception of human life/human morality/religious freedom issues. Bishops should not be dictating economic or political systems.

We should all pray for the Church. It is in grave danger in many countries today.
Click to expand...
So, the Church should only get involved in political matters that matter to you?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
And the skeptics definition of a credible scientist is - there are none.
Click to expand...
LOL, that’s an easy one.

A ‘credible scientist’ follows the scientific method to validate their theories and science. When their work fails the scientific method, they honestly acknowledge the failure and make appropriate adjustments to their science and theory.
 
Theo520 said:
LOL, that’s an easy one.

A ‘credible scientist’ follows the scientific method to validate their theories and science. When their work fails the scientific method, they honestly acknowledge the failure and make appropriate adjustments to their science and theory.
Click to expand...
.,which neatly side-steps the question of who these scientists are. If they exist, I want names. If not, well, my statement stands: there are no credible scientists.
 
Diplomatically speaking, the Vatican envoy can’t ask the questions below, and he’s merely relating what was in the PAS/PASS report (which may as well have been written in the UN or in the White House.)

It’s obvious that MMGW is being driven primarily by Secularists in government and researchers dependent upon grants.It’s not based upon scientific findings; it’s about money and power (and the follow-on pleasure those things bring). Money, power and pleasure is all there is for Secularists; no Christian-promised afterlife with reward or punishment.

So, an intelligent person must ask: Since Secularists believe that when they die, it’s all over, why are they shouting and renting their garments about MMGW? Why are they not shamed into silence by the colossal failures and the well-known data manipulation, or by an inability to demonstrate actual scientific proof for MMGW?

There obviously can be only one answer: the concept of MMGW is a source of money, power and pleasure in this world, a "tax and spend and siphon-off " dream.

And of course there is the elephant in the living room: islandpacket.com/2015/06/08/3785559/g7-climate-vision-requires-gargantuan.html
 
KSU said:
Originally Posted by KSU View Post
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o…global_warming

None of those scientists are credible because they don’t believe what you believe. OK, that’s a relief; I was beginning to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
Maybe you didn’t understand me. Estesbob in post 207 implied that “warmists” only consider scientists to be credible if they believe in AGW. Your posting confirms that the skeptics are just as close-minded as they only consider scientists to be credible if they reject AGW.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Maybe you didn’t understand me. Estesbob in post 207 implied that “warmists” only consider scientists to be credible if they believe in AGW. Your posting confirms that the skeptics are just as close-minded as they only consider scientists to be credible if they reject AGW.
Click to expand...
Correction: it was post 307.
 
One of the speakers slated for the Vatican rollout of the long-awaited Papal document on climate change once said the earth is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people…In a talk given to what’s described as the “failed” 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, reported in the New York Times, Schnellnhuber, who has advised German President Angela Merkel and is a visiting professor at Oxford, said of global warming: “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”
Click to expand...
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top