What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

There is a third option. The Church also teaches the importance of caring for the environment. If one does not know where to turn, then I would suggest that Laudato Si provides us guide.

The church tells us that we should be good stewards of the earth, but she tells us nothing whatever about what specific actions we should take. Pope Francis’ opinion that man is responsible for global warming doesn’t make it true, and adds nothing whatever to the scientific arguments either for or against the claim.

But from the arguments that have been put forth against climate change, one would think that it does not take a scientist or any kind of technical expert to see that the IPCC is morally corrupt (what with climategate and all). At least that is the argument that is put forth about half the time in these forums. The other half is filled with pseudo-scientific attacks against the theory. But getting back to the moral attacks, one would think that if the claims of corruption were true, it would take an especially inept and ignorant pontiff and other Church leaders to be taken in by such corruption. Common sense and respect for the intelligence of these men should lead one to see that such attacks are very likely unfounded.

That leaves the scientific analysis which can only be done by experts. So excluding claims of corruption, it would make sense to accept the expert findings of the majority of these scientists.

 

[Ender]

That leaves the scientific analysis which can only be done by experts. So excluding claims of corruption, it would make sense to accept the expert findings of the majority of these scientists.

Since you assert that these decisions should be made by scientists this must mean that the opinions of non-scientists have very little weight. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it would exclude the opinions of most of those in the Vatican.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That leaves the scientific analysis which can only be done by experts. So excluding claims of corruption, it would make sense to accept the expert findings of the majority of these scientists.

Since you assert that these decisions should be made by scientists this must mean that the opinions of non-scientists have very little weight. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it would exclude the opinions of most of those in the Vatican.

I didn’t use the Vatican opinions to support the scientific argument I used them to shoot down the corruption arguments.

 

[Theo520]

The great failure of the climate models - Washington Examiner

Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.

This is a critical error.​

 

[Ender]

I didn’t use the Vatican opinions to support the scientific argument I used them to shoot down the corruption arguments.

And I used your argument to shoot down the idea that we should look to the Vatican for instruction on what should be done with regard to global warming.

 

[MichaelP3]

And expecting this!

Not a single person with actual knowledge. Please people! Let us keep our dignity!!!

But really, the ignorance I see here… I have no words. I would ask these souls to come for advice from us experienced individuals.

Ps (some here need some real googling skills and not need me " who is literally eating because of these conversations" )

 

[MichaelP3]

Oh common knowledge whould exclude any “Vatican intrusion of which they know nothing about” but that is not the point! As you should know!

 

[MichaelP3]

I have a question. As a person who literally work with Carbon emissions on a daily basis. I am (for some reason) very interested in this thread from a different viewpoint.

Are there any persons who actually changed their viewpoint because if this thread?

I actually had one reply. Just one! Whether I was for this or that camp is irrelevant! ALL posters on this thread should think a bit. Even if you just glanced my post (and I know many of you did) but that explains a lot of you! Please people!!!

I actually think I am starting to know the problem with climate change!

 

[Theo520]

Are there any persons who actually changed their viewpoint because if this thread?

nobody here disputes the repeated assertions that CO2 is a GHG. No need to change minds there bud.

The disagreement centers on the feedbacks to CO2 levels increasing. I doubt minds have changed here because the argument has been one sided. Skeptics raise the issue yet nobody from the other side engages or refutes the questions asked.

 

[1cthlctrth]

And, notice the private jets that the celebrities and politicians who pretend to support the “man-made” climate change idea use.
One flight on a private jet emits as much carbon as most regular people emit in one year.
One of Al Gore’ homes uses 21 times as much energy as the average American uses.
So the question needs to be asked: if these celebrities TRULY believed in the idea, then why do they consistently used private jets, while telling the rest of us what to do?

 

[1cthlctrth]

The rhetoric from Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Leftists regarding “man-made” climate change and the looming “doomsday” in 12 years is even contributing to inspire mass shootings. The Leftist media will not tell you this (gee, I wonder why. The Leftist media will only tell you what fits their narrative), but here is an excerpt from the El Paso mass murderer’s Manifesto. Similar to Al Gore’ documentary, it was titled: “The Inconvenient Truth”:
“Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of necessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands…most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

 

[HarryStotle]

The rhetoric from Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other Leftists regarding “man-made” climate change…

In related news, Michael Mann, the originator of the “hockey stick” warming scenario graph has lost his case and has been ordered to pay the defendant’s legal fees in a British Columbia court case Mann brought against Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs - American Thinker

Mann was ordered by the court to provide the raw data upon which his “hockey stick” graph was based, but he refused to do so.

The court found that Mann would be required to demonstrate his case by showing in open court the R2 regression numbers behind his graph in order to substantiate his claim that Ball had defamed or libelled him by doubting the science behind his graph. Mann refused.

So the question becomes: Why would Mann refuse to do so if the data irrefutably proves his case?

From the article, “… under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake.”

There is another well-known case that may be impacted. That one, another defamation suit, was brought by Mann against author/journalist Mark Steyn and may soon be headed to the US Supreme Court.

 

[PetraG]

I’m not going to bother with everything you’ve posted if I can just refute your conclusion.

The problem is that you did not. You instead came to the defense of the kind of use of DDT that was going on back then. There are no contemporary scientists that support that. Instead, they point out that using DDT to stop malaria poses a health threat even to the people it is used to protect.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Thanks for the link. I always like to educate myself and to stay informed. At least Mann had to pay the legal fees. But, too many Leftists sue people who are just trying to live their lives and don’t want the trouble

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And, notice the private jets that the celebrities and politicians who pretend to support the “man-made” climate change idea use.

This post is an example whataboutism

…but here is an excerpt from the El Paso mass murderer’s Manifesto.

More whataboutism. It has no bearing on climate change. I don’t think the El Paso shooter was a climate scientist.

.

 

[HarryStotle]

Thanks for the link. I always like to educate myself and to stay informed. At least Mann had to pay the legal fees. But, too many Leftists sue people who are just trying to live their lives and don’t want the trouble

Nothing is as good for the reputation of science and scientists as a well-known scientist threatening others with defamation suits if they don’t accept his findings and then refusing to prove his findings before the court.

Scientists, like women, apparently, just ought to be believed without evidence, merely because they are scientists.

 

[1cthlctrth]

But if the woman is a brilliant Conservative like Candace Owens…Well, then Leftists feel free to attack her.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t think Candace Owens is a climate scientist.

And regarding the defamation lawsuits (plural),

1. In June 2019 the Frontier Centre apologized for publishing, on its website and in letters, “untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Mann”. It said that Mann had “graciously accepted our apology and retraction”.
2. Mann’s suit against Ball continued, and that is the suit that Mann has now lost.
3. The suit against CEI and two others, despite motions to dismiss, are still on-going.

The question is not so much about believing experts. It is more about what qualifies as defamation.

As far as evidence goes, it does exist. The dispute was only over the release of the raw uncalibrated temperature data as it related to the defamation suit. Among scientists, scientific standards of evidence for climate change have been maintained.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think Candace Owens is a climate scientist.

I looked this up. She is a high school graduate. She dropped out of college while pursuing a journalism degree and too an office work job. This, again, is part of the problem. Many of the so-called scientists that deny climate change, aren’t. There have been three mentioned on this thread which were journalist or commentators, presented as though their opinions were evidence. This sort of sleight of hand is why it is easier to believe that the scientific community is divided.

 

[Theo520]

Scientists, like women, apparently, just ought to be believed without evidence, merely because they are scientists.

That’s only applies to ‘Climate Scientists’, who also get a pass in applying the Scientific Method to their work.