R
robertmidwest
Guest
Do you have a valid source for this statement? I believe you are wrong. I think China produces much more pollution than the U.S.
Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]
- Status
K
KSU
Guest
Pope Francis cautioned the future Vatican diplomats: “You are not called to be the high functionaries of a state,” but should work as “guardians for a truth that supports those who offer it.” He warned them not to become involved in factional conflicts, or to “be colonized by the popular ideas of the day, or by the illusory hegemony of the ‘mainstream.’”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25357
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25357
C
CaptFun
Guest
:sad_yes: - Scientists who still want to study (whatever it is that is “settled”) remain scientists. Not necessarily skeptics or deniers. Ready to look and consider new information on whatever subject (rather than
and say “that’s settled”).That said, I do believe that there are absolutes (the 2 + 2 = 4 “proposition” etc.). And times when right and wrong are clear (particularly in moral issues). What people mean when they say “climate change” is probably pretty diverse too … making it hard to even define the terms and not be talking past each other in …
… considering all manner of data, information, and well presented points of view NOT dismissed by a perfunctory " … this has been settled".With all due respect to the “Vatican Envoy”.
- “… and Professor, per the “Big Bang (theory),” …** what ** went bang? When? Where? And how? Or is it BAD for "a scientist to ask .… THAT**”?
C
CaptFun
Guest
CaptFun responds in RED
Sorry,shaw: aw, that’s OK, we all make mistakes
but the science on the greenhouse effect (and hence our current possibly slowing or “on hiatus since 1998” AGW) was settled nearly 200 years ago. It is based on the laws of physics, and explains the temps on Venus, Earth, Mars, and other planets. For now I deduce that human activity has not put Venus or Mars in imminent danger … but given my popping off about being discerning per new science data vs. “settled science” I should withhold any absolute pronouncements on interplanetary future weather (humbly, for now).
My issue isn’t really with you lynnvinc, I am doing a big ***wh-aaat? *** over this sudden, seemingly desperate need of my Church’s leaders to put on scientists hats and foray into a controversial secular issue that rather makes me wonder if they’re not mixing their personal political beliefs with their theology … and in THAT priority?!
The first studies to detect the warming (which was predicted more than 100 years ago since greatly increasing industrialization) came out in 1995 (three years prior to the temp high that has since not be equalled … hence called hiatus, pause, etc) at .05 on the null (95% confidence), and the science has become evermore stronger and more robust, with many lines of inquiry from different perspectives saying the same thing. You (or they) could be right, I suppose. Yet the weather keeps catching us by surprise … some of it including record cold temperatures we weren’t warned to expect.
bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-show-sign-warming-9-years/
ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-show-sign-warming-9-years/
climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/
dailycaller.com/2014/10/27/ipcc-climate-scientist-global-warming-pause-could-last-30-years/
The science on AGW is most certainly settled. It would take the dismantling of the field of physics and creating a whole new physics (maybe from bizarro sci-fi world) to question AGW at this point. OR maybe
- Another non-man-made “global cooling” event like the Krakatoa Volcano 1883 or Mt. Tambora in 1815.
:tanning: - I know this climate will change. Possibly for worse. For now? Thanks Lord for a beautiful day!
K
KSU
Guest
E
ephesians4
Guest
I see priests saying the debate is over, I see politicians saying the debate is over, and I see scientists relying on the subject for funding saying the debate is over.
I would expect any 17 year old still in education to have the level of critical thinking necessary to call that into question, strip those sources out of any argument and set them aside in their investigation of the issue. That’s long before we get anywhere close to a conclusion.
Honestly I don’t know why this sort of thing is even a thing - we have bishops making pronouncements on science, scientists making pronouncements on theology, and any number of other people speaking on matters they are not qualified to speak on, and they all seem to have an entourage of willing wrong-sponges.
Has rational thought gone out of fashion or something?
I would expect any 17 year old still in education to have the level of critical thinking necessary to call that into question, strip those sources out of any argument and set them aside in their investigation of the issue. That’s long before we get anywhere close to a conclusion.
Honestly I don’t know why this sort of thing is even a thing - we have bishops making pronouncements on science, scientists making pronouncements on theology, and any number of other people speaking on matters they are not qualified to speak on, and they all seem to have an entourage of willing wrong-sponges.
Has rational thought gone out of fashion or something?
K
KSU
Guest
It’s all going the way the Left knew it would, but they haven’t won anything of substance yet. First, the Pope did not say the earth will burn up unless we pay up, as the Left lobbied him to (he said the opposite), and, second, when Joe Sixpack realizes it’s all about the world-wide Cap and Trade tax scam, spines will stiffen and the forthcoming proposals for outrageous tax increases will be turned down.
Here’s a bit of good news: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25419
K
KSU
Guest
CaptFun, I don’t know why or how my post #362 happened
K
KSU
Guest
I don’t believe actual number$ have yet been established for what Obama and the UN shysters have planed in the way of taxes to “save the world.” We will have to wait until after the Paris Climate Change Conference, COP21, in Nov. and Dec. to get a better idea. The stated objective is a legally binding agreement on climate change solution$ from all the nations of the world. I’m afraid that the realistic goal of the current US powers-that-be is something else.
It feels ridiculous to even type that last sentence. I can just see the Socialists salivating: "Oh, here, please, take our pledges of money and drastically reduced GNPs. We promise to use mostly wind, waves and sun if the US and EU enacts laws to extort money from their sheep and greatly reduce use of fossil fuel (so there can be more for us).
I’m sure you know the name of the game-- competitive advantages in commerce and trade. It has always been so, which I learned in the seventies when dealing with UN proposals.
If an honest world-wide target of reduced pollution rather than “climate change” were the goal ** (it is not)**, a majority of the world’s people would be happy to join in.
T
Theo520
Guest
Exactly, if the focus was on reducing actual pollutants, and perhaps growing fish stocks, we could make real progress that would have measurable impacts.
The 3rd world poor need cheap and cheerful stoves that pollute less (safer) and burn less fuel. Solar is much further down the hierarchy of needs
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Oh, I see. So carbon emissions is what caused the West to collaspse, not importing people from other places of the world and saying they don’t have to assimilate on practical things because this or that happened 500 years ago, not to mention the selfish entitlement mentality.=weller2;13000417]Uh, the Western civilization is already dead. If there’s one thing that people on this board agree on, is that Western civilization is a walking corpse. The only difference is that most people here blame gay marriage, and I blame thermodynamics
Manage a collapse? Like the Romans or the Incas did?The main objective currently should be the management of collapse. Which is what is actually happening, if you look closely at world politics. Why do you think your government bought billions of bullets last year?
What makes anyone think that would happen since bad management supported by an overall ill-informed electorate caused the collapse in the first place.The management would less government goodies for them. That’s been a no-no from the start.
So why would that mentality change?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Quite possibly one of the major reasons for MMGW skepticism is that no one actually experiences it. There are all these articles (most of them derivative) and purported studies that sometimes get debunked, and there are contrary articles too.
But nobody actually experiences it. People live decades and decades and never experience MMGW or its subcategory “climate change”. And so people publish their articles and their TV shows, the climate doesn’t actually change and eventually people just stop believing because their own skins tell them it isn’t happening.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Interestingly, the Roman Empire saw its growth during a warming period. That warming period, some say, also produced a population explosion on the Eurasian steppes among the barbarians. When it started to cool down, the population fell and the steppe people decided to move into better climates in order to survive.
So, warming periods might not be all that bad, and cooling periods don’t seem to be particularly beneficial.
T
traillius
Guest
So, science just stops in its tracks and accepts something, irrespective of any possible alternative explanation or data analysis. How very flat earthen of them…
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
people are entitled to opinions and not facts, and the facts are clear for anyone willing to listen to them: global warming is very real, very serious, and demands action for catholics because the poor will be affected the most in a negative way.
just because northern countries may be less adversely affected is no excuse for inaction.
just because northern countries may be less adversely affected is no excuse for inaction.
T
Theo520
Guest
No countries have been adversely affected by man made global warming, all we have experience are normal cyclical droughts and storms. Sea level rises to date have been steady and nominal.
L
lemongrass80
Guest
Actually, the very nature of science is always questioning. They do not have a faith bias, so they do not have motivation, in general, to support certain beliefs.
Just because some findings are contrary to your personally held beliefs, does not make them wrong.
L
lemongrass80
Guest
You’ll find nothing but heads in the sand here.
T
Theo520
Guest
The confidence level reflects whether man is contributing to global warming, not that the predictive models are accurate.
I would say there is a 99% consensus on the below:
- CO2 is a GHG (radiative forcing)
- Man is increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
- ergo, man is increasing warming over natural variation
- Status