What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not here to explain anything. My only comment was that sweltering heat on the east coast is nothing new. Period.
 
Irishmom2 said:
I am not here to explain anything. My only comment was that sweltering heat on the east coast is nothing new. Period.
Click to expand...
Yes, you and PhiriTalk and talking about different things. Your comment makes it clear that you are not generalizing your experience to make any claims one way or the other about global warming. And @PhiriTalk, you are not doing your cause any good by saying that climate deniers deny God. That is sad for me to see because I agree with the climate change message you are trying to support, but devisive comments about someone else’s relationship with God is about the worst way to do it.
 
Last edited:
Climate deniers do deny God though. How is stating this fact counterproductive?

Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not is irrelevant. It’s happening regardless of what you believe. The topic should what to do about it now that it exists, not going around in circles with people who pretend like it doesn’t exist.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Climate deniers do deny God though. How is stating this fact counterproductive?

Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not is irrelevant. It’s happening regardless of what you believe. The topic should what to do about it now that it exists, not going around in circles with people who pretend like it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Please, please stop. You are embarrassing me and all those who take climate change seriously.
 
I accept that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and routinely advocate that action be taken to counter its harmful effects. How is this a bad thing?

The Catholic Church also accepts that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and routinely advocates that action be taken to counter its harmful effects. Thus anyone who pretends that anthropogenic climate change isn’t occurring is denying God and God’s church. Why is this difficult to grasp?
 
Hot in Pennsylvania in July. Nothing unusual. The last two years were abnormal with so much rain. This year is a typically hot and humid Pennsylvania summer. I hear it’s hot in Florida too. Does anyone think that is abnormal?
 
If you can’t drink hot coffee on a hot day, then you are weak and you will not survive the Apocalypse.
My official POV on the matter. Dixit.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I see. You are not actually criticizing Mann and his hockey stick graph. You are criticizing the apparent inconsistency between Mann’s graph and the graph you cited from Arthur Holmes’ textbook on Principles of Physical Geology, which for some reason ended up in some IPCC report or other.
Click to expand...
Let me try again. The graph I copied in post 448 was from the IPCC First Assessment Report. It looks very similar to the earlier graph (post 439) which appears to have been a fairly standard temperature graph at the time. Neither of those bears any resemblance to the hockey stick, so my question is: which of the two the IPCC published (IPCC FAR or IPCC TAR) was in error?
I have a hard time believing the IPCC used that graph in any substantial or meaningful way, so you will have to show the context of that graph if you expect its inclusion to be a reason for outrage.
Click to expand...
Here is the caption the IPCC applied. Is it really that complicated?

Figure 7.1: Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since the Pleistocene on three time scales (a) the last million years (b) the last ten thousand years and (c) the last thousand years The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century
Maybe you should question those “standard textbooks” rather than the IPCC or Mann. So far you have only cited one such book, and recent temperature reconstructions of that period agree with Mann more than Holmes.
Click to expand...
I am questioning the IPCC. I’m questioning how they presented two temperature variation charts ten years apart that are so different from one another. As you said, Mann’s doesn’t look much like Holmes, but Holmes looks very much like the IPCC FAR.
 
Tolle_Lege said:
Sounds more like a secular sci-fi powwow than a Catholic conference. Not surprising, it’s Notre Dame. They jumped the shark a long time ago.
Click to expand...
You’re much too quick to give up on ND. Like most places they have their share of questionable faculty, but unlike most places they have more than their share of strong ones as well. They are nothing like Georgetown or Marquette.
 
PhiriTalk said:
The Catholic Church also accepts that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and routinely advocates that action be taken to counter its harmful effects. Thus anyone who pretends that anthropogenic climate change isn’t occurring is denying God and God’s church. Why is this difficult to grasp?
Click to expand...
Well, the Church is teaching the appropriate moral response to a particular set of scientific conclusions. I think the conclusions on which they are basing those teachings are correct, and I certainly think the Church is correct about the moral response to a particular objective situation, but I can also concede that the Church is not guaranteed to be an infallible source of scientific conclusions. Therefore, those among the faithful who fail to accept the science in good faith are not “denying God and God’s Church.” They might be guilty of some offense against the truth–that is to say “in good faith” has the kind of constraints that correctly forming a moral conscience does–but that is not the same as denying God and denying the Church, which implies they are guilty of heresy. This is different than that, even if they are 100% wrong about the science.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Nothing like someone claiming to be a catholic being offended by actual catholics.

Anti-intellectuals are the worst kind of people.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing is not necessarily the same as being offended.

You’re very bitter. Cheer up.
 
Tolle_Lege said:
They’re advisory and have no teaching authority.

A Catholic is not bound to accept evolution.
Click to expand...
I meant do you think they sound “more like a secular sci-fi powwow than a Catholic conference” when they say the same thing.

A Catholic also shouldn’t dismiss science as being secular because he or she doesn’t happen to like it. It is getting a bit tiresome to hear Catholics who have a serious difference about science essentially implying that the other side are heretics or schismatics or atheists (or you name it).
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I see. You are not actually criticizing Mann and his hockey stick graph. You are criticizing the apparent inconsistency between Mann’s graph and the graph you cited from Arthur Holmes’ textbook on Principles of Physical Geology, which for some reason ended up in some IPCC report or other.
Click to expand...
Let me try again. The graph I copied in post 448 was from the IPCC First Assessment Report.
It looks very similar to the earlier graph (post 439) which appears to have been a fairly standard temperature graph at the time. Neither of those bears any resemblance to the hockey stick…
Click to expand...
Without knowing the context in which the simplified graph appeared, I don’t know why I ought to expect them to look the same. I think you are looking for differences for the sake of looking for differences while ignoring the question of whether those differences are relevant.
40.png
Ender:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I have a hard time believing the IPCC used that graph in any substantial or meaningful way, so you will have to show the context of that graph if you expect its inclusion to be a reason for outrage.
Click to expand...
Here is the caption the IPCC applied. Is it really that complicated?

Figure 7.1: Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations since the Pleistocene on three time scales (a) the last million years (b) the last ten thousand years and (c) the last thousand years The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century
Click to expand...
It still does not tell me anything about the context in which this reference was made. But if you want to know which graph I would consider more accurate and relevant, I would say Mann’s graph, since it is similar to many other modern graphs. But as for that, the differences in appearance are largely due to differences in scale and style - not very relevant to the ultimate question.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Nothing like someone claiming to be a catholic being offended by actual catholics.

Anti-intellectuals are the worst kind of people.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is how the judgment described in Matthew 25 made that judgment. In dividing the sheep and the goats, intellectual attainment or the lack of it had pretty much nothing to do with deciding who goes right and who goes left.

We’re not commanded to agree with one another or even to understand one another. We’re commanded to love one another and, as we hope to escape judgment ourselves, to refrain from judging one another.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
I meant do you think they sound “more like a secular sci-fi powwow than a Catholic conference” when they say the same thing.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on the specific Notre Dame science conference topic, something along the lines of “human evolution and cybergenics.”

My feeling is that the PAS willingly accepts some of these theories before sorting out the theological implications which are more important. And evolution can be understood in different ways. Some aspects of evolution are not readily compatible with certain Church teachings unless great liberties are taken to “adapt” Church teaching to “fit” the science.

It is equally tiring to me to hear many Catholics put science front and center before theology and Church teachings. And these Catholics tend to claim that the other side is anti-intellectual, unlearned, or close-minded.
 
That’s not what conservatives tell me all the time. They that because I disagree with their racism, sexism and homophobia that I am “offended”. If this true, then it’s a two way street.

I am not offended by LGBT people, but conservatives on this forum very much seem to be offended by LGBT people.

Those that deny that anthropogenic climate change is occurring are anti-intellectual and are generally found on the far right of the spectrum.
 
Anrakyr said:
My brother attended the yearly Catholic science conference this year at University of Notre Dame.

My bro brought up climate change and a number of scientist (all Catholic mind) became sad and said this.

“People who are not scientifically minded will cling to articals and news heads that seem to debunk our warnings without understanding how irrelevant the points they bring up are. Many of us have Catholic family members who routinely are convinced away from our advice.
Climate change is very real and it needs to be addressed soon.”
Click to expand...
Anrakyr said:
my brother did ask about global warming.

The panel unanimously said it’s a problem we need to address immediately. Regardless of who caused it we are making it worse.

Frankly when our best Catholic minds agree, that’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
found YouTube videos of the various presentation at the 2019 conference

https://www.catholicscientists.org/ideas/theme/what-does-it-mean-to-be-human

do you know if there are any videos of the panel discussion, where your brother asked the question about climate change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top