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

[Darryl1958]

Scientists are not so easily used. They may be misquoted. Sure. So ignore politicians too. Just go to the academic journals where results are published. Unless you think the vast left-wing conspiracy has taken over all of them too.

You are the one who keeps bringing up the idea of a conspiracy.
There is no left wing conspiracy, only leftist bias and leftist economic goals.

And leftist fingers on the scales, being funded by leftist causes.

In the meantime, doomsday scenarios have come and gone.

 

[philipl]

Don’t expect Americans to start caring about the environment anytime soon. Most pollution in the world comes from the United States, but they won’t lift a finger to fix it because they seemingly thing they have a right to pollute. Perhaps it’s time for some UN sanctions against the US like they did against Iran?

This whole statement is untrue.

 

[jtauke]

It must be a burden to you, this absolute certainty of knowledge you possess. And yet there is no relief to be had, surrounded as you are by so many people who “don’t get it,” like you do. Now, seemingly emboldened by the recent announcement from the Vatican envoy, the need for dialog apparently is over, as evidenced by the statement “The party’s over. Get over it.” That has to be the most helpful and effective technical and philosophical argument I have yet heard.

Mob sentiments and comments from sociologists aside, the debate is clearly not yet settled, and life apparently still goes on in spite of the informed skepticism you are powerless against.

Oil reserves in nature are not self sustaining.

Regardless of climate change, don’t you think it’s in humanity’s best interest to pursue renewable energies that have less possible impact on the planet?

We are stewards of this earth, are we not?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are the one who keeps bringing up the idea of a conspiracy.
There is no left wing conspiracy, only leftist bias and leftist economic goals.

But it would take a huge conspiracy to explain the widespread acceptance of climate change theory. Having a vocal minority merely voice their biases and leftists economic goals would not do it.

And leftist fingers on the scales, being funded by leftist causes.

Speculation on both counts.

In the meantime, doomsday scenarios have come and gone.

Stop reading the tabloids.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But it would take a huge conspiracy to explain the widespread acceptance of climate change theory. Having a vocal minority merely voice their biases and leftists economic goals would not do it.

Speculation on both counts.

Stop reading the tabloids.

The tabloids exist precisely because there is a ready market for the tales they tell, just as there is for articles and books predicting climate disaster. If billions of dollars were available to people who could write tabloid articles, there would be a lot more of them.

 

[sps49]

Oil reserves in nature are not self sustaining.

Regardless of climate change, don’t you think it’s in humanity’s best interest to pursue renewable energies that have less possible impact on the planet?

We are stewards of this earth, are we not?

Yes they are, just not on a time scale that is comparable to our lifespans. However, it is not at all clear what the size of the reserves are; we have "educated"guess at best, based on incomplete models.

It is humanities best interest to survive, and to do that one must consume resources. How one does that may be an arguable topic.

Your man of straw flutters in a strong breeze.

 

[jtauke]

Yes they are, just not on a time scale that is comparable to our lifespans. However, it is not at all clear what the size of the reserves are; we have "educated"guess at best, based on incomplete models.

It is humanities best interest to survive, and to do that one must consume resources. How one does that may be an arguable topic.

Your man of straw flutters in a strong breeze.

There’s no straw man .

It’s not a stretch to say we use oil faster than it is created by nature. And yes, we must consume to survive, but we have a duty as children of God to do more than consume his gift to us.

 

[sps49]

There’s no straw man .

It’s not a stretch to say we use oil faster than it is created by nature. And yes, we must consume to survive, but we have a duty as children of God to do more than consume his gift to us.

LOL! You must be a real technical expert, who invokes the stunning and intellectually shattering “rolleyes” as your response. Your entire post was a straw man, employed to elicit shame on one side, and moral superiority on the other. It fell rather flat on itself, and it is trying to crawl into a dark corner.

You speak in exact moral tones, yet employ unfocused terminology such a as “stretch”. What exactly does that mean, and do you have a useful estimate for this catastrophic depletion? If you believe we do little other than “consume” then you must be using a friend transcribe your message on the technology that was created by “consuming” energy and resources.

 

[jtauke]

LOL! You must be a real technical expert, who invokes the stunning and intellectually shattering “rolleyes” as your response. Your entire post was a straw man, employed to elicit shame on one side, and moral superiority on the other. It fell rather flat on itself, and it is trying to crawl into a dark corner.

You speak in exact moral tones, yet employ unfocused terminology such a as “stretch”. What exactly does that mean, and do you have a useful estimate for this catastrophic depletion? If you believe we do little other than “consume” then you must be using a friend transcribe your message on the technology that was created by “consuming” energy and resources.

And your reply reeks of pseudo intellectual arrogance, but I digress.

Can you cite scientific proof of your claims? Please do, I’ll sit here and wait.

 

[adawgj]

From what I see it seems like the rest of the world is waiting for the Americans to agree that climate change is a threat.

 

[Theo520]

From what I see it seems like the rest of the world is waiting for the Americans to agree that climate change is a threat.

Well, who else is going to give them their ‘climate change’ welfare checks?

 

[jtauke]

Well, who else is going to give them their ‘climate change’ welfare checks?

This has nothing to do with welfare.

 

[sps49]

And your reply reeks of pseudo intellectual arrogance, but I digress.

Can you cite scientific proof of your claims? Please do, I’ll sit here and wait.

It would indeed look like arrogance if you did not bother to look at the facts for yourself. Fortunately, this may be remedied; crack a book, do some independent verification of the “facts” that are driving your moral outrage.

Scientific proof? Science is not needed at all. The tools we now have that are a result of the resources and energy man has mined is evidence enough. If you were referring to my post of a year past, it needs no science to validate it either; clearly the debate continues. But don’t wait on me, the data is out there for all to see, just uncover your eyes and leave your echo chamber for some fresh air.

 

[jtauke]

It would indeed look like arrogance if you did not bother to look at the facts for yourself. Fortunately, this may be remedied; crack a book, do some independent verification of the “facts” that are driving your moral outrage.

Scientific proof? Science is not needed at all. The tools we now have that are a result of the resources and energy man has mined is evidence enough. If you were referring to my post of a year past, it needs no science to validate it either; clearly the debate continues. But don’t wait on me, the data is out there for all to see, just uncover your eyes and leave your echo chamber for some fresh air.

The onus is on you to prove your point through proper sources, not for me to prove it for you…

You insultingly rebuked a poster on page one for stating oil reserves were not infinite. Yet you have not provided any sources to backup that rebuke.

 

[Darryl1958]

From what I see it seems like the rest of the world is waiting for the Americans to agree that climate change is a threat.

The developing countries of Asia, with their emerging huge economies, shrug it all off as colonialists trying to find ways to keep their economies down.
Canada has its oil sands, and Europe has done well by staying the course with nuclear energy.
If eight years of Obama has left the world waiting, then what has he been all about in the first place?

 

[Darryl1958]

But it would take a huge conspiracy to explain the widespread acceptance of climate change theory. Having a vocal minority merely voice their biases and leftists economic goals would not do it.

No it wouldn’t.
No more than it would take to get the world to believe in socialism.

Speculation on both counts.

Not at all. it is very easy to see the political divide in the discussion of this topic.
nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

Stop reading the tabloids.

Silliness.
I don’t read the tabloids., only the predictions by ‘scientists’ that have come and went.

nationalreview.com/article/426409/calcification-climate-science-ian-tuttle

 

[Theo520]

This has nothing to do with welfare.

Never heard of the UN Green Climate Fund?
Their funding goal is $100 billion for redistribution.

 

[sps49]

The onus is on you to prove your point through proper sources, not for me to prove it for you…

You insultingly rebuked a poster on page one for stating oil reserves were not infinite. Yet you have not provided any sources to backup that rebuke.

The “onus” is not on me to validate “common knowledge” such as “technology exists, is created by our work and resources” or that “the debate still goes on.” Are you serious? My goodness, the fact that hot water, newsprint, computers and medicine exist is enough for any rational person to concede that yes indeed, resources are used, and tools are created as the result. The fact that professional and lay people are still debating climate change attribution is also easily verifiable by this thread alone.

One man’s insult is anothers praise. Please, you have to do better than that. The post itself is a year old, and that person has not posted since last July. My comment stands quite well against his:

“Yes, and it would be nice if the oil stock was infinite, but it isn’t.”

statement. It was absurd and straw strewn because of the word “infinite.” You should get that moral outrage checked out, it looks like a pretty bad case.

 

[jtauke]

The “onus” is not on me to validate “common knowledge” such as “technology exists, is created by our work and resources” or that “the debate still goes on.” Are you serious? My goodness, the fact that hot water, newsprint, computers and medicine exist is enough for any rational person to concede that yes indeed, resources are used, and tools are created as the result. The fact that professional and lay people are still debating climate change attribution is also easily verifiable by this thread alone.

One man’s insult is anothers praise. Please, you have to do better than that. The post itself is a year old, and that person has not posted since last July. My comment stands quite well against his:

“Yes, and it would be nice if the oil stock was infinite, but it isn’t.”

statement. It was absurd and straw strewn because of the word “infinite.” You should get that moral outrage checked out, it looks like a pretty bad case.

This is hilarious. You talk so much and say nothing at all.

I’m hardly outraged. I simply don’t see why we shouldn’t transition to other sources of energy, regardless of whether or not climate change exists or not.

 

[Ender]

That still leaves open the question of where a reasonable person does get information on this matter. Statements from the Vatican may not carry scientific authenticity, but they do point to the importance of the matter, so that the question may not be casually dismissed, the same way you might casually dismiss the question of who will win the World Series this year.

“The Vatican said so” carries no more weight (on questions of science) than claims that “97% of climate scientists say so.” Neither has anything to do with understanding the actual facts of the matter. If one knows nothing about the issue it would be reasonable to simply accept what is said by those one has a reason to trust. The problem is that if one does know something of the matter this turns out to be poor advice.

Ender