L
Larry1700
Guest
You tell me.
- Status
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Climate change is not a matter of faith and morals. It’s not on my radar.
E
Ender
Guest
Does it? Or is your conclusion that it does based on nothing more than eyeballing it?
That observation was never the primary argument - which was the graph - but it raised a reasonable doubt: if droughts are actually increasing it would be quite unusual for the US to just now set a record for being free from drought.
P
phaster
Guest
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
…is something Einstein said and the thought is applicable to climate change!
the reason I see little need to respond to every post, is because it seems useless to banter about details when far too many don’t even understand basic science of CO2 (which has various knock on effects),… for example did some reading of old post(s) on this website and found an Apr ’08 discussion,…
then an Dec ’14 discussion,…
sadly it seems even today catholics (and 99.99% of the general population) don’t have a basic “scientific” understanding of what is going on
so once again I’ll repost the key concept(s),… ignoring michael mann’s infamous hockey stick graph,… BUT given “global dimming” (which was known 20 years ago and indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the global climate), “decreasing pH levels in the oceans” (which is another clear signal that indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the environment), the 2015 Berkeley lab paper on the observation of CO2 increasing greenhouse effect at the earth’s surface, the ever increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the keeling curve) and known physical properties of the CO2 molecule,… is just part of the overwhelming scientific evidence that basically tells mankind that we,… “human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”
basically given the science,… responding to various climate change whataboutism(s),… is as I mentioned a quagmire I wish to avoid
http://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-03/climate-denialism-s-stupidity-frustrates-action
and the CC whataboutism(s) are akin to thinking that the catholic idea of transubstantiation
and Korowai from deep in the jungles of West Papua,… share the same basic belief(s)
as I’ve mentioned I’ve been fortunate to have had some key figures walk me through the basic science of CC and I’m here to share and outline that knowledge with open minded catholics (conservative or liberal)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
who don’t have a formal hard science background,… and have the courage to face the climate change issue(s) head-on
P
phaster
Guest
“interesting” to describe the end of our physical world, is one way to describe the Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...n-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/
…any thoughts about the parable of the vineyard owner which seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”
http://forums.catholic-questions.or...talk-about-the-hard-issues-at-mass/556670/219
P
phaster
Guest
intentionally disregarding big problems is a basic way people cope w/ emotional stress,…phaster:
You tell me.
BUT as I’ve said before ignoring teaching the science isn’t WWJD IMHO
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Jesus realizes we can’t all deal with everything and doesn’t expect us to.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Sorry, I have real-life things happening in my life today that concern me much more.
Muting now, bye
Muting now, bye
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It depends on what level of drought you analyze. The most severe level of drought (D4) according to the mathematical linear regression trend line calculated from downloaded tabular data does indeed show increasing percentage of the US experiencing that level of drought over the longest period for which US Drought Monitor keeps records.LeafByNiggle:
Does it? Or is your conclusion that it does based on nothing more than eyeballing it?
Not really. Drought over the short term is highly variable. Questions about long term trends cannot be answered, or even seriously addressed by looking at such cherry-picked statistics.
L
Larry1700
Guest
Perhaps. But then again, it may not be as big a problem as you are imagining it to be.
Or, maybe you’re “coping” by ignoring views from reputable scientists who dispute the claims of those whom you choose to tout.
Or, maybe you’re “coping” by ignoring the many times political entities (not just in the U.S.) try to use scare tactics to gain more power.
Or, maybe you’re “coping” by ignoring the fact that there are many in the U.S. who want to destroy us from within, and put a system of socialism in its place. (AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted that the Green New Deal is not about climate change, but about overhauling the economy.) And as I recall (no time to look it up), there was a Russian leader who said that they could make America socialist not by war, but by working from within.
P
phaster
Guest
FWIW in the OP of this thread I pointed out that there is essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that cause climate change in the public at large (so over the long discourse I’ve tried my best to outline the key concepts which non-scientists need to understand)
basically aside from mentioning Laudato si’ then pointing out stuff cited by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the pope
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/events/2018/climatechange2018.html
http://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/05/28/startling-inaction-on-climate-change-must-end-pope-says/
other long term users of CA have also shared their own insights:
@PetraG mentioned she has PhD in chemistry so she understands better than most the that declining pH levels in the oceans just don’t happen randomly, there is a scientific mechanism that has to be treated w/ respect
@Anrakyr mentioned “catholic” scientists on panel unanimously said CC is a problem we need to address immediately (at the Catholic science conference at University of Notre Dame)
WRT ignoring views from reputable scientists,… just happens Roger Revelle the professor that got me interested in the topic of CC decades ago, was a seminal figure in the study of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, AND I’ve pointed out to users like @Theo520 there was a battle started long ago to try and muddy the waters using his name
I’ll be the first to admit, there is too much politics associated w/ CC and note that I’ve posted details about Gore being a BIG hypocrite and an idiot explaining the science
but the fact remains if one has the courage and honestly looks at the science using “error chain” analysis (which is used in the aviation sector to determine why aircraft accidents happened)
then we see, there are serious consequences for ignoring the various troublesome signs that science has revealed,…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
L
Larry1700
Guest
- I might have missed it by not reading every post in this thread, but what are your credentials which enable you to believe you understand the topic better than others?
- I would encourage you to watch Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled.” That, among other things, shows how being a skeptic on ANYTHING not mainstream can get you ostracized. The days of back-and-forth arguments (in the best sense of the word) between scientists such as Einstein and Bohr are fading away fast.
- Sorry, but I’m not hung-ho about using the dwindling economic resources of the United States to fight a windmill/knight (a’ la Don Quixote’), whilst other economies grow large enough to become unambiguous threats to our existence.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As for phaster’s credentials, they are irrelevant, since nothing in phaster’s posting asks you to take anything on his/her word. The content of the posting is either true or false regardless of who is saying it or what their credentials are.
As for Ben Stein’s movie, that would be a deflection, because it is an attempt to switch the discussion from climate change to a discussion and denigration of “mainstream” thought (whatever that is!). If the only tool you have to dispute climate change theory is distrust of all mainstream thought, then that is too broad a weapon, as it can then lead to distrusting vaccines, the moon landing, the dangers of smoking, etc. No, you need to find a way to discredit climate change without discrediting all accumulated knowledge for your argument to be taken seriously.
As for your third point, the discussion of remedies for climate change is important too, but it is a separate discussion and has no bearing on the facts of climate change. Scientific fact does not care if our economy is dwindling, or indeed if we live or die. Scientific fact just is what it is. It is legitimate to discuss what is cost-effective, fair and just, or a waste of time when it comes to remedies. But we must not let that discussion feed back into the more fundamental discussion of what is going on with the climate today and likely to be going on with it in the future.
As for Ben Stein’s movie, that would be a deflection, because it is an attempt to switch the discussion from climate change to a discussion and denigration of “mainstream” thought (whatever that is!). If the only tool you have to dispute climate change theory is distrust of all mainstream thought, then that is too broad a weapon, as it can then lead to distrusting vaccines, the moon landing, the dangers of smoking, etc. No, you need to find a way to discredit climate change without discrediting all accumulated knowledge for your argument to be taken seriously.
As for your third point, the discussion of remedies for climate change is important too, but it is a separate discussion and has no bearing on the facts of climate change. Scientific fact does not care if our economy is dwindling, or indeed if we live or die. Scientific fact just is what it is. It is legitimate to discuss what is cost-effective, fair and just, or a waste of time when it comes to remedies. But we must not let that discussion feed back into the more fundamental discussion of what is going on with the climate today and likely to be going on with it in the future.
L
Larry1700
Guest
phaster questioned the ability/credentials of dissenters
On the contrary, it demonstrates how dissenting/skeptical views are NOT always addressed via scientific argument. The wagons are circled, and those views are simply silenced. Dissenters lose jobs. Dissenters aren’t allowed an equal forum in which to debate.
Except, in light of what I have previously stated, there is insufficient understanding of the causes and solutions to warrant spending the trillions of dollars to “fix it.” If you want to follow the economy-changing thought of AOC’s chief of staff, then admit that’s what the true goal is. Obamacare’s Jonathan Gruber was caught admitting that they were relying on the stupidity of the American people in order to pass that expensive, economy-changing legislation. Americans “Too Stupid to Understand” Obamacare.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
which was also irrelevant.LeafByNiggle:
phaster questioned the ability/credentials of dissenters
This is a continuation of the same deflection. That fact the dissenting/skeptical views are not always addressed via scientific argument does not mean they are not addressed by scientific argument in this case, ergo a deflection.
“In the light of what you just previously stated” is a reference to that same deflection and is therefore inapplicable to the question of climate change.
L
Larry1700
Guest
You’re not addressing my points. You’re just calling them a deflection.
Ergo, you’re deflecting.
I’m assuming you don’t even need sugar for the Kool-Aid.
Ergo, you’re deflecting.
I’m assuming you don’t even need sugar for the Kool-Aid.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s the whole purpose of a deflection - to get the opponent to address the points you want to have addressed, regardless if they are relevant or not, and they usually are not.
L
Larry1700
Guest
So…
You’re deflecting by trying to get me to argue with you about deflection. Brilliant!!!
You’re deflecting by trying to get me to argue with you about deflection. Brilliant!!!
T
Theo520
Guest
You are deflecting from the topic you raised, plain and simple.
The ‘feedbacks’ are the most damaging aspect of climate change models yet you repeatedly ignore every post on ‘feedbacks’. Either you don’t understand the science or you are writing simply as an agenda driven shill for alarmists.
I repeat, since CO2 feedbacks are projected to deliver over 2/3 of projected warming, us ‘deniers’ think they are VERY IMPORTANT. They can’t be ignored while you banter about the 1C in warming we experience directly from CO2 radiative forcing, the only settled science in the climate change discussion.
You should really stop trying to educate people until you get a grasp of 'feedbacks.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Phaster is not denying the importance of feedbacks. But if people don’t even believe that CO2 traps infrared heat at all (which is basic science) then they certainly won’t be in a position to understand feedbacks. And the posts that phaster quoted showed that people do indeed lack the basic understanding of the primitive action of CO2 in the climate.phaster:
You are deflecting from the topic you raised, plain and simple.
The ‘feedbacks’ are the most damaging aspect of climate change models yet you repeatedly ignore every post on ‘feedbacks’. Either you don’t understand the science or you are writing simply as an agenda driven shill for alarmists.
I repeat, since CO2 feedbacks are projected to deliver over 2/3 of projected warming, us ‘deniers’ think they are VERY IMPORTANT. They can’t be ignored while you banter about the 1C in warming we experience directly from CO2 radiative forcing, the only settled science in the climate change discussion.
You should really stop trying to educate people until you get a grasp of 'feedbacks.
- Status