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.
Ender said:
If global warming is such an established scientific fact, then why is it there is no agreement as to why there has been no warming for over 18 years? Why do the models continue to predict warming even as the Earth itself stubbornly refuses to heat up? It is asserted that the “missing” heat for the past 18 years has gone into the oceans but this claim cannot be either verified or refuted since there is simply insufficient evidence to confirm or deny it.

There are hypotheses galore about how the atmosphere can heat the oceans without heating up themselves, but there is nothing like established fact. These are guesses that don’t even rise to the level of theories.

Ender
Click to expand...
It is a fallacy to assume that there must be agreement on the 18 year pause. It is not an essential part of the main theory.
 
Hope_Philomena said:
I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)
Click to expand...
If one is persuaded that a) the world is warming, b) humans are causing it, c) it’s because of fossil fuel use, and d) that it portends disaster, then such a person cannot avoid having a sense of impending doom and a certain impatience with those who do not agree with all or part of a,b,c and d, despite the facts that many in the scientific community do not agree with all or part of the formulation, and that nobody actually experiences MMGW.

I, for one, don’t doubt for a moment that there are environmental risks on a large scale that are manmade. If one looks at northern China, parts of Africa, and parts of Central Asia, there are enormous areas that have been desertified by inappropriate agricultural methods; desertification that actually does add to atmospheric warming and failure of CO2 uptake by plants, and virtually nobody is really addressing that with any discernible degree of seriousness. There are areas in the world where careless mining and manufacturing are poisoning large areas with heavy metals and other toxic substances. One nation, at least, dumps radioactive waste at sea routinely.

There are serious environmental issues, and yet they’re all eclipsed and, in fact, neglected, because of the emphasis on global warming.

And some people (like me) watch the politicians who are actually pushing and propagating the MMGW idea, and notice that the major proponents do not, in any manner, live as if they believe in it. And yet, they want peoples’ utility bills to “skyrocket”. They want fuel costs to go up, which will make food more expensive. Why is their professed belief not reflected at all in the way they live? The answer fairly leaps to the tongue. They don’t actually believe it. If those who have the best access to information don’t believe in it, why should I?
 
Micosil said:
Well, a first step would be to let go of prejudices against the government, the media, Hollywood, etc. and recognize that science does seem to make a decent case for it.

.
Click to expand...
And what is the second step? The problem is that the “solution” is usual far left agenda of massive taxes, regulation and limiting the number of people allowed to be born on the planet .
Sciencet hasn’t made a good case. They put forth a hypothesis that rising CO2 inevetably led to rising temperatures. Wellb that hasn’t happened and instead of admitting that perhaps their hypothesis was wrong they come up with more and more bizarre explanation as to why even though they were wrong it proves they were right. And they get away with this because it is politically expedient for those who believe in bigger government and income redistribution to mock those who point out the problem with the hypothesis as “deniers” - the little wink wink nod nod comparison of those who dare to question their hypothesis with those who deny the killing of 4.5 million Jews in the 40s .
.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is a fallacy to assume that there must be agreement on the 18 year pause. It is not an essential part of the main theory.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. The main theory is that increased CO2 causes increase temperatures.Well The former has increased significantly while the latter has not.
 
Hope_Philomena said:
I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this. I don’t understand why people want to hold on to information that better than 97% of scientists say is false. The Jesuits have always been forward thinkers and I’m so happy that Pope Francis is one of them. With God’s grace he will make a difference.
 
Good_Tidings said:
I’m with you on this. I don’t understand why people want to hold on to information that better than 97% of scientists say is false. The Jesuits have always been forward thinkers and I’m so happy that Pope Francis is one of them. With God’s grace he will make a difference.
Click to expand...
The Pope has not yet expressed himself on a,b,c and d, let alone on whether causing utility bills to “skyrocket” is his preferred solution.
 
Micosil said:
This demonstrates a poor understanding of science and the role even such a small concentration of carbon dioxide can play in the atmosphere. I would suggest you read the first paragraph of this article.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, I get it. In 10 years the planet will be so hot that we will no longer be able to read books because the paper will spontaneously combust due to the effects of raising CO2 from 3 parts per million to 5 parts per million. The publishing industries will shut down causing mass unemployment and I will no longer be able to read about “Cosmo’s 75 sex tips to drive any man wild” in the checkout line. In that world, the living will surely envy the dead.
 
Good_Tidings said:
I’m with you on this. I don’t understand why people want to hold on to information that better than 97% of scientists say is false. The Jesuits have always been forward thinkers and I’m so happy that Pope Francis is one of them. With God’s grace he will make a difference.
Click to expand...
Except 97% of scientists don’t agree and the Pope has not expressed anything his predecessors didn’t likewise express nor has he endorsed any of the disastrous “solutions” put forth AGW proponents
 
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...
Why all this energy and focus on a controversial political issue that pales in comparison to truly moral ones such as SS marriage and the destruction of the family through cultural pressures? What about defiant Catholics who are losing their faith? Did the mission of the Church change without us knowing it?
 
Good_Tidings said:
This may play a part in the misunderstanding:

mediamatters.org/research/2011/02/01/fox-news-top-10-lies-about-climate-science/175811
Click to expand...
Here is a snippet:

Rolling Stone recently included News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch in its list of politicians and executives it contends are “blocking progress on global warming,” writing that “Murdoch’s entire media empire, it would seem, is set up to deny, deny, deny.”

Rolling Stone magazine! Now there is a credible news source…

I’m sure some people at the University of Virginia would think otherwise though…

Ishii
 
estesbob said:
Of course it is. The main theory is that increased CO2 causes increase temperatures.Well The former has increased significantly while the latter has not.
Click to expand...
You are over-simplifying and over-generalizing to make it easier for you to refute. But in fact the theory is about longer term trends, not the short-term cherry-picked periods you love to cite. So you have not actually addressed the theory of global warming.
 
ucfengr said:
Media Matters is not an objective news source. They’re an advocacy group.
Click to expand...
That’s a classical ad hominem attack (also called “shoot the messenger”). If you can’t refute the arguments of a source, just label them an advocacy group and skip actually refuting them. But if you read the citation, Media Matters is not asking anyone to take them at their word. They have references to outside sources. (I know, I know, all sources that disagree with you must be corrupt.)
 
ishii said:
Here is a snippet:

Rolling Stone recently included News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch in its list of politicians and executives it contends are “blocking progress on global warming,” writing that “Murdoch’s entire media empire, it would seem, is set up to deny, deny, deny.”

Rolling Stone magazine! Now there is a credible news source…

I’m sure some people at the University of Virginia would think otherwise though…

Ishii
Click to expand...
Wow! The ad hominems are coming thick and fast today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top