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

[weller2]

The fact that the data in the studies is flawed, politically motivated

Which data on optical properties of CO2 is flawed and which laws of thermodynamics are politically motivated?

and that NO ONE has has modeled the entire planet as a dynamic system shows there is a lot more going on here than what the largely unqualified climate alarmist movement would have us believe.

Untrue. Limits to Growth, 1972. They simply used historical data to derive influence of industrial pollution on population and GDP.

Nobody has managed to challenge that model. The only substantiated criticism was that the authors have underestimated the total resource base. But what was glossed over was that doubling the resource base does not prevent collapse, only delays it by 20 years (assuming 3.5% pre-collapse GDP growth).

Model output in dashed lines, historical data in solid lines:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[weller2]

Besides, killing civilization won’t stop the seas from rising.

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

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?

 

[sps49]

Dialog over what? Geological constraints? Basic properties of exponential function? Laws of thermodynamics? Optical properties of CO2? None of these things are negotiable.

Only the way in which they are represented in climate models, and the mountain of parametrizations that must be stitched together to keep the model together long enough to produce an output that has little to do with reality. No objective standards for verification and validation of these things, as you know, so no way to test them objectively. Therefore, no accountability. And yet it is suggested that we use them as levers for public policy. They are good for some narrowly defined research criteria, but not as policy tools.

Claiming skeptics don’t believe in basic physical phenomena such as those you outlined above is a misdirection, designed to take the attention away from the severe problems the models have, and to re-frame the discussion to one of unreasonable disbelief. You know as well as I do that they are two separate things, and that belief in the optical properties of CO2 does not imply a need to believe in flawed climate models that contain as an element the properties of CO2, optical or otherwise.

 

[sps49]

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

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?

I would not call for the coroner quite yet. Your crystal ball is no better than that of anyone else, and being angry and courting outrage does not grant you clarity.

 

[MarkR]

Only the way in which they are represented in climate models, and the mountain of parametrizations that must be stitched together to keep the model together long enough to produce an output that has little to do with reality. No objective standards for verification and validation of these things, as you know, so no way to test them objectively. Therefore, no accountability. And yet it is suggested that we use them as levers for public policy. They are good for some narrowly defined research criteria, but not as policy tools.

Claiming skeptics don’t believe in basic physical phenomena such as those you outlined above is a misdirection, designed to take the attention away from the severe problems the models have, and to re-frame the discussion to one of unreasonable disbelief. You know as well as I do that they are two separate things, and that belief in the optical properties of CO2 does not imply a need to believe in flawed climate models that contain as an element the properties of CO2, optical or otherwise.

He knows this. You’re beating your head against a wall, but thanks for posting this.

 

[ishii]

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.

Uh, I think rumors of the death of western civilization are exaggerated, and I don’t know that people on CAF agree that its dead. At the very least, now is no time to throw in the towel. I do agree that western civ is in decline and will continue to do so as long as people in the west continue to not have children.

I would not call for the coroner quite yet. Your crystal ball is no better than that of anyone else, and being angry and courting outrage does not grant you clarity.

Ishii

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Which we won’t have to worry about since water will not cover all of the land even if it all melted.

Even if rising seas covered only 2% of the land, a heck of a lot of people live on that 2%. They cannot breathe under water, so they will be looking for a new place to stay. Can you imagine the refugee crisis?

 

[MarkR]

One of the cornerstones of the climate change religion/50s sci-fi movie is proclaiming that there are too many people alive and walking the earth. Too many useless “carbon footprints”. They suggest that birth control, sterilization and abortion be mandatory, ratcheted up and implemented across the board as a solution. The U.N ties aide to these conditions being met in 3rd world countries. Does this Vatican envoy agree with this?

Moreover, this shakedown is aimed primarily at the United States. Does he know that the Obama sanctions on energy production hurts the poor here the most? Does he know that if they can’t pay their skyrocketing energy bills that they can lose their homes? Do the cardinals and bishops in the U.S. know this?

This envoy used the term “denying”. That’s straight from the Left’s term “Climate change denier”, which is meant to compare and conflate those who deny man made climate change to Holocaust deniers… Is he doing this also?

Well done Vatican. Good show.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Last time I checked humans cannot breathe under water, so climate change is a life issue.

I fail to see how Catholics could think the climate and environment are not life issues so I’m certainly glad to see the Vatican official speak out. And I don’t know if the National Catholic Reporter is considered by CAF conservative Catholics to be too liberal (Though I may have seen it said somewhere that American Magazine is) but here are a couple of other pieces from Catholic media sources explaining why it is a pro life issue.

ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/editorial-climate-change-churchs-no-1-pro-life-issue

americamagazine.org/issue/800/100/climate-change-life-issue

 

[Elizium23]

the National Catholic Reporter is considered by CAF conservative Catholics to be too liberal (Though I may have seen it said somewhere that American Magazine is)

You mean the National Catholic Distorter? The National Schismatic Reporter? The Fishwrap? And its redheaded stepchild Amerika is no better. These ultra-liberal rags are a sure reliable source for things the Church condemns.

And yes, AGW is a life issue. It’s Population Control. AGW alarmists want us to contracept, abort, and sodomize ourselves out of existence. That’s why it is so critically dangeroud for the Church not to get in bed with alarmists.

 

[Blacksword]

Not in my opinion and thousands of scientists. I suppose we are supposed to go back to the horse and buggy. It would be nice if there were a cheap, clean source of energy that worked in all kinds of weather. But none is on the horizon.

Linus2nd

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

 

[ishii]

One of the cornerstones of the climate change religion/50s sci-fi movie is proclaiming that there are too many people alive and walking the earth. Too many useless “carbon footprints”. They suggest that birth control, sterilization and abortion be mandatory, ratcheted up and implemented across the board as a solution. The U.N ties aide to these conditions being met in 3rd world countries. Does this Vatican envoy agree with this?

Moreover, this shakedown is aimed primarily at the United States. Does he know that the Obama sanctions on energy production hurts the poor here the most? Does he know that if they can’t pay their skyrocketing energy bills that they can lose their homes? Do the cardinals and bishops in the U.S. know this?

This envoy used the term “denying”. That’s straight from the Left’s term “Climate change denier”, which is meant to compare and conflate those who deny man made climate change to Holocaust deniers… Is he doing this also?

Well done Vatican. Good show.

Well said. This is very bizarre - the Vatican getting behind the left’s preoccupation with global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). The goals of the left do not coincide with the goals of the Catholic church. I am wondering who is behind this.

Ishii

 

[MarkR]

I fail to see how Catholics could think the climate and environment are not life issues so I’m certainly glad to see the Vatican official speak out. And I don’t know if the National Catholic Reporter is considered by CAF conservative Catholics to be too liberal (Though I may have seen it said somewhere that American Magazine is) but here are a couple of other pieces from Catholic media sources explaining why it is a pro life issue.

ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/editorial-climate-change-churchs-no-1-pro-life-issue

americamagazine.org/issue/800/100/climate-change-life-issue

It’s not a life issue if it’s not happening. It’s not happening.

Btw, the climate was 5% warmer than it is now in the 14th century. They were growing olives in Germany. What caused that?? Too much horse manure? Where was the global cataclysm?

You believe in this because you want to believe in this. You’re the flat earthers.

 

[MarkR]

Well said. This is very bizarre - the Vatican getting behind the left’s preoccupation with global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). The goals of the left do not coincide with the goals of the Catholic church. I am wondering who is behind this.

Ishii

Me too Ishii, and Why.

 

[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

Well said

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well said. This is very bizarre - the Vatican getting behind the left’s preoccupation with global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). The goals of the left do not coincide with the goals of the Catholic church. I am wondering who is behind this.

Ishii

So you only like and choose to accept it when the Vatican speaks on and gets behind issues important to Republicans & other political conservatives? But otherwise the Vatican is wrong?

 

[_Abyssinia]

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

The 97% statistic has been disputed:

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

There are also allegations of cooked stats:

The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com//fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats

You can read the full article at the above link. So I guess the 97% is accurate - but it’s the views of 75 scientists. You wrote, ‘97% of scientists in the field of climate science accept the claims of human-caused climate change’ - but that is not accurate given the above information, is it? Not if that statistic comes from this highlight from the thesis. There is also another paper by Cook et al. which says 97%… But this has been disputed too:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

It’s not a life issue if it’s not happening. It’s not happening.

Btw, the climate was 5% warmer than it is now in the 14th century. They were growing olives in Germany. What caused that?? Too much horse manure? Where was the global cataclysm?

You believe in this because you want to believe in this. You’re the flat earthers.

Wake me up when they’re growing wheat and making beer in Greenland as the Norsemen did in the 14th century. THAT was global warming in action … and it didn’t last forever, it reverted to cooling eventually. Climate is cyclical like everything else.

 

[KSU]

So you only like and choose to accept it when the Vatican speaks on and gets behind issues important to Republicans & other political conservatives? But otherwise the Vatican is wrong?

The Vatican can’t be right or wrong, and it can’t speak on any subject; it’s a group of buildings. Only people can speak, and most aren’t worth listening to, especially in this time of incompetent and/or biased and sensationalized translations and spin by the media.

So, yes, knowledgeable Catholics most certainly do choose what to accept. Wake me when Pope Francis makes belief in man-made global warming/climate change a doctrine.

BTW, many, or maybe even most Republicans are yesterday’s Democrats and are not the political conservatives you say they are.

As for the UN, it’s for the most part a group of anti-Catholic and anti-American, self-serving national secularists who just want to save the environment–by aborting babies and taxing the daylights out of the United States. These days, they also seem hell-bent on fitting homosexuality into the mix.

Since you brought American politics into this discussion, does UN policy remind you of any particular American Party?

And please don’t assume I am unconcerned about the environment. My adult life has been devoted to preserving it, which is how I came to be acquainted with UN policy.

 

[weller2]

You know as well as I do that they are two separate things, and that belief in the optical properties of CO2

Belief in optical properties of CO2. Belief.

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.