What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

Metis1:

and now take steps to not only reduce global warming but also to reduce pollution levels, conserve resources, etc.

I’m with you on the second two, the first is just fear mongering

Britain should be ‘siberian’ by the end of the week, not sure where all that famine will hit in the next day though.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Contingency planning by the Pentagon does not constitute a scientific consensus. Also cherry picking of news articles.

 

[Metis1]

Such consensus can be found covered here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and here: 87 Percent of Americans Unaware There's Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

and here: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm

and here: Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | The National Academies Press

Notice that these are scientific sources, not political ones, and the NAS is the main scientific advisory group to the Legislative and Executive Branches here in the States.

IOW, the scientific verdict is in whether one likes it or not even if the right-wing politicians and their media prefers to ignore or disagree with it.

 

[EndTimes]

It seems to me that it’s just plane old common sense and well established science that when put together indicates that we should not ignore either and now take steps to not only reduce global warming but also to reduce pollution levels, conserve resources, etc

Many do not accept whatsover what gets peddled as accepted “science”
which also supports the Carbon Taxation Plan to the tune of c… 100 Trillion USD

And too… who’ve noticed that Many Dire Alarming Calamities claimed to gonna happen - have not.

That said? Yes… Do our best to not poison…

Tell that to the Gov’t’s who both rake in the Taxes and are the largest Poisoners of Planet Earth
_

 

[EndTimes]

I’m with you on the second two, the first is just fear mongering

Britain should be ‘ siberian ’ by the end of the week, not sure where all that famine will hit in the next day though.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yep!

Even Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is shivering way beyond what the Alarmists claimed would occur

If it smells phony - it probably is phony…

Yet - with Globalism on the march - those who’ll defend Immense Carbon Taxation Plans alleged to cool An entire Planet and save her from every calamity imaginable?

They ignore all which has completely undermined the AGW Narrative;
and . they’re not about to stop

_

 

[Ender]

Such consensus can be found covered here…

Because everyone knows that “consensus” is such an important part of science.

IOW, the scientific verdict is in whether one likes it or not even if the right-wing politicians and their media prefers to ignore or disagree with it.

“The scientific verdict is in….” and apparently we don’t know any more today than we did 40 years ago since the uncertainties about the value of the climate sensitivity have not changed since it was first estimated, but it’s good t know we are now certain about our uncertainties.

 

[Metis1]

I’m finished, including even trying to have a serious discussion with some here.

As a retired scientist, I’m sick and tired of reading what some here spout about how we supposedly function, nor do they seem to even care what the Truth may be because only their opinion seems to matter to them.

So, go ahead and just pile on some more, but you’ll not get any more responses from me.

Goodbye.

 

[phaster]

I’m finished, including even trying to have a serious discussion with some here.

As a retired scientist, I’m sick and tired of reading what some here spout about how we supposedly function, nor do they seem to even care what the Truth may be because only their opinion seems to matter to them.

yup at times it can be pretty frustrating AND seems others feel the same way (who shared that they too retired from a science career)

I am done. I’m done pretending that there is some likelihood the American Chemical Society or the National Academies of Science or the American Meteorological Society or the American Physical Society are either hoodwinking us or being hoodwinked.

BUT given the new year, what about a resolution not to let idiocracy win?!

IOW by throwing in the towel so to speak this allows mistruths to propagate about climate change!!

as scientists we have a god given talent that should be used to highlight the various lies and mistruths being spread

think of this way, the majority of people out there lack the benefit of a formal science education and years of experience

all too often too many catholics in this country don’t trust the science of CC because scientist do a poor job of explaining their understanding of the issue and putting things into context

I’ve seen the climate of my own little corner of the world change in my lifetime.
I think it might be natural cycles and causes.
I also think it might be man made.

I am extremely uneasy at the tactics of the scientist who promote the anthropogenic model, that they just dismiss anyone who isn’t in lock-step with their opinion as “stupid” and “crazy”

said another way, a formal hard science education as well as familiarity of catholic teachings, theology and scholastic philosophy can be useful to explore and point out what are the connections of faith, science, influence and sin

Ask a Priest Anything...about Confession! Liturgy and Sacraments

WRT influence, Pope Francis and “ecological sin” the big question I am trying to wrap my mind around is about the general case,… said another way specifically wondering what are the connections of faith, science, influence and sin so WRT “faith” and the idea of the scientific method simply put [AGW%20denier%20bathroom] now looking at the catholic capital sin of GLUTTONY (i.e. an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires) [GLUTTONY (FOOD)] in a consumer society whic…

since there exists the sacrament of confession w/ in the catholic church, perhaps one way to build inspiration is to consider continuing a serious discussion with some here (as well as the public at large)

Climate change fears propel scientists out of the lab and into the streets

guess what I am trying to say is, taking the time to point out the hard science of climate change, might be considered a form of penance and/or sacrifice

 

[phaster]

phaster:

summarizing this thread, seems a root cause of climate change denial is due to fear, doubt and ignorance of basic science,… along w/ faith??? because there exists the sin of PRIDE (i.e. excessive belief in one’s own abilities)

Endlessly repeating this empty charge doesn’t make it true. You keep asserting it but you’ve done nothing to demonstrate its validity. Other than saying “I know more than you” you really don’t have much of a position.

searching past CAF threads about CC and sin took all of 10 minutes to find something that explains the textbook case differences

Sorry, I also want to post about climate change itself.

People claim that, since the temperature of our earth has always fluctuated, it is impossible for humans to cause the temperature to change. I would counter this by saying forest fires have always occurred, yet humans can still create MORE forest fires. Yes, levels of CO2 in our atmosphere naturally go up and down, and this naturally changes the earth’s temperature. But that does not mean man cannot artificially raise the temperature by releasing artificially large amounts of CO2.

People deny climate change based on interpreting ice caps, or other nonsense. Forget all that. Go back to the basic science. If you deny that man is heating the earth, which of these is false?

1. The Greenhouse effect, which was proven in 1859, that CO2 and other gases trap heat on earth?

or

1. That burning oil releases carbon dioxide?

One of these must be false. Because if burning oil releases CO2, and CO2 heats the earth, then burning Co2 heats the earth. And if you think the greenhouse effect is flawed, I ask you to look at the numerous scientific proofs of it from over 100 years ago and ask what they did wrong. You would win a Nobel prize if you proved the Greenhouse effect is wrong.

which is followed by

My experience at CAF is that the ACC [ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE] skeptics cannot under any means at all be convinced ACC is happening. It is a total waste of time to even try and convince them. They just will not accept it, even if God Himself were to come speak directly to them about it…since they don’t accept even what the scientists and popes have been saying about it. It’s not a science issue, but an ideological issue, and they are totally convinced that if people seriously decide to mitigate ACC it will end up in a totalitarian regime and economic collapse.

AND given published research that says

Abstract

Of this article’s seven experiments, the first five demonstrate that virtually no Americans know the basic global warming mechanism.

www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187

i.e.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

FWIW pretty sure your first reaction is to think

It is irrational to make these statements together.

QED

 

[Ender]

1. The Greenhouse effect, which was proven in 1859, that CO2 and other gases trap heat on earth?

or

1. That burning oil releases carbon dioxide?

One of these must be false.

This is the kind of nonsense that does nothing to forward the theory of AGW. Everyone understands that there is a greenhouse effect, and that CO2 contributes to it. What nobody understands, however, is what will happen if the concentration of CO2 doubles. That’s the whole point of the calculation of the value of “climate sensitivity”. The “likely” value was estimated to be between 1.5 C and 4.5 C…back in 1979. Since then that estimation has not changed. So what has been learned in the last 40 years?

That value, by the way, is asserted to be a constant, which is another guesstimate. The idea that “the science is settled” on any of this is foolishness.

 

[Freddy]

And too… who’ve noticed that Many Dire Alarming Calamities claimed to gonna happen - have not.

The bush fires in Australia are now classed as the worst ever and we’ve 3 months to go in the season. Seventeen dead so far. There will be more. Many people are missing. My family and I went down the coast to a camp site for 4 days but were told to evacuate on the second day. My son and dil were further south and made it out 10 minutes before the main highway was closed. If they’d missed that then they’d still be on a beach 4 hours south - the only relatively safe area. His friend stayed to protect his property. My son wanted to stay to help. His wife persuaded him to leave. There is no news about his friend yet.

Thousands of people in the coastal town of Malacoota in Victoria had to leave the town and spend the night on the beach trying to protect themselves from falling embers. The navy is sending a ship to evacuate them.

The fires are so severe that they are causing localised storm conditions and lightning strikes start further fires. A local firestorm created winds so strong that it flipped a 7 ton fire truck and killed the driver. The scenes are apocalyptic. Truly horrifying.

Our capital Canberra was blanketed by smoke so thick that it had the worst air quality on the planet. It was over twenty times the safe level. It was actually dangerous to be out of doors. The smoke has even reached New Zealand.

Sydney is surrounded by fires. There are water restrictions and you can’t hose anything down so everything outdoors is covered in a layer of ash.

All this caused by Australia’s driest decade ever. We were warned it was going to happen. It doesn’t make it easier to accept now it is happening. With people fleeing towns, evacuations all over the state, surrounded by fire, the sense that it’s out of control, the fact that the army and navy have been called into action…it truly feels like a war zone.

This is not usual. It is unprecedented. Nobody in living memory has experienced this. I don’t want my grandkids to grow up thinking that this is normal.

 

[Freddy]

I have just heard that those 17 people so far killed included an old friend I hadn’t seen in many years. When you know it’s going to get worse you don’t realise how much worse.

He lived pretty much off grid quite some distance from the nearest town. He should have left for safety. There was no chance of outside help. He was found in his burnt out car. It was caught in the flames as he was trying to reach a water supply. He was a good man.

 

[twoshoes]

And we all know scientist don’t justfy their positions for grants, or po zdx itions at the big table. We should just follow along with our tails between are legs, don’t bark just eat the scrapes from the table. Right or wrong I’ll make up my own mind not lectures paid by people with ulterior motives, money.

 

[EndTimes]

The bush fires in Australia are now classed as the worst ever and we’ve 3 months to go in the season. Seventeen dead so far.

And This - in your opinion - including dryness - connects with which parameter of Climate?

 

[stavros388]

Sure. Keep your mind open… open enough to consider that millions of dollars are invested by big companies that feel threatened by the wide acceptance of man made climate change in order to create a “controversy” where there really isn’t one. Nobody should have to “follow along” with their tails between their legs! But if you defer to scientific consensus and expertise on all other scientific matters, which you likely do, you just might want to ask yourself why you’re selectively choosing not to defer on this matter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It would be a lot easier to believe in MMGW that’s fossil fuel-driven if temperature increases were actually noticeable in North America in places other than those that mismanagement has desertified.

I don’t worry too much about carbon in the atmosphere. It’s about 1/10 what its maximum has been and is (for me) uncomfortably close to “Little Ice Age” levels. Besides, it is my clear impression that carbon sequestration in the soil is greatly increasing in the last few decades in the U.S. at least. We can’t much affect what goes on in the rest of the world.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It would be a lot easier to believe in MMGW that’s fossil fuel-driven if temperature increases were actually noticeable in North America in places other than those that mismanagement has desertified.

The level of change you require would be at a point when many people world-wide would have already died and terrible damage would already have been done. It other words, it will be too late to do anything about it.

I don’t worry too much about carbon in the atmosphere. It’s about 1/10 what its maximum has been

This old invalid argument keeps being repeated so the only thing to do it keep reminding people that when CO2 was that high, there was no civilization.

and is (for me) uncomfortably close to “Little Ice Age” levels.

Your assessment of the likelihood of an even a tiny ice age are without any scientific foundation.

Besides, it is my clear impression that carbon sequestration in the soil is greatly increasing in the last few decades in the U.S. at least.

It is your clear impressing that the amount of carbon being sequestered is on the same scale as the amount that it being emitted? If it is, your “clear impression” is faulty.

We can’t much affect what goes on in the rest of the world.

We can if we show leadership and commitment. As it is, the rest of the world is more committed to this effort than the US, but they will grow weary of bearing all the burden themselves.

 

[EndTimes]

But if you defer to scientific consensus and expertise on all other scientific matters, which you likely do, you just might want to ask yourself why you’re selectively choosing not to defer on this matter.

Everyone has heard and heard about 97% consensus

However, Have any ever actually heard of any specifics as to exactly how that number was arrived?

 

[HarryStotle]

since there exists the sacrament of confession w/ in the catholic church, perhaps one way to build inspiration is to consider continuing a serious discussion with some here (as well as the public at large)

Okay, I am game.

How about we discuss how using temperature anomalies – as in deviation from the mean temperature –between 1850 and 1900 is a very deceptive way to portray the severity of warming?

For those wanting a summary version, compare the following two graphs:
This one provides a “frightening” picture of warming based upon deviation from the mean from 1850 to 1900. Why not, for example, anomalies based upon the mean from 1925 to 1975 when CO2 levels were between 300 and 320 ppm?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This one provides a straight depiction of global average temperatures, showing that they have hovered around 57°F since 1850 based upon HadCRUT4 (median data).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I suppose using graphs where the “mean” temperatures are selectively chosen to portray the impression we want to make on the public can be deceptive even while being based upon “hard data.”

Yet…

 

[Ridgerunner]

he level of change you require would be at a point when many people world-wide would have already died and terrible damage would already have been done. It other words, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Oh? Well, that’s new to me. Some evidence please?

when CO2 was that high, there was no civilization.

That’s true, dinosaurs had no civilization of which we are aware.

It is your clear impressing that the amount of carbon being sequestered is on the same scale as the amount that it being emitted? If it is, your “clear impression” is faulty.

I have read that the U.S. sequesters approximately as much CO2 as it emits. In other parts of the world, it seems unlikely.

We can if we show leadership and commitment. As it is, the rest of the world is more committed to this effort than the US, but they will grow weary of bearing all the burden themselves.

Since China exceeds the U.S. in CO2 emissions and India is well on its way, there is not the least reason to believe this.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have read that the U.S. sequesters approximately as much CO2 as it emits. In other parts of the world, it seems unlikely.

Where can i read about this? I would like check out this claim.