What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey faster, you should take down the videos with explicit, and I mean explicit language in it…there are minors and those who do not wish to hear that kind of cursing that read the forum.
It is also a violation of posting rules…

Just a tip so you won’t incur a ban-hammer

M
 
Last edited:
@BlueMaxx, etc., so what is the bigger sin, using strong language to make a valid point,… or leading others astray w/ lies???

true strong language might not be appropriate for very young kids,… but you (and perhaps others) seem to have missed a key idea
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
according to the study, the sample at a tourist attraction in balboa park was selected because it draws visitors from around the nation so its a great place to get a broad cross section of individuals who most likely would have a greater likelihood to have access to knowledge about climate change (because the assumption was it takes money to be able to visit a tourist attraction AND individuals who have money, most likely have more exposure to various formal educational institutions) and about…
Click to expand...
so an explicit explanation might put things into context as well as be a teachable moment for those who might not have thought that the contentious issue of CC can be viewed as variations of events described in the gospels

given this thread has been a long discussion about a very serious subject where questions of truth in science and faith are being discussed,… let’s start by imaging that jesus is teaching the truth about some basic science

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

now recall the only time jesus becomes visibly agitated (basically when his teachings were corrupted AND people were being lead astray)

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

viewed in this context, kids (as well as grownups) should understand the strong salacious language being used by comedians is perhaps justified because there are too many who corrupt the truth about what science has uncovered about harm being done to creation,… AND the only way to emphasize the point as well as to hopefully get those lead astray back on the right path,… is to perhaps use strong words and point out the lies that have been accepted as truth

one does not have to go far to see why strong words or strong actions might be needed,… for example throughout this thread (since the OP) we see
phaster said:
all too often people think they smarter than they actually are!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
which sure looks like PRIDE (i.e. excessive belief in one’s own abilities)


sigh,…

FWIW in the illustration above (of Jesus teaching the truth) an alternate text can be used
phaster said:
…the parable of the vineyard owner which seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”
Here is a brief summary:
A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.
Click to expand...
National Catholic Register
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
phaster:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQ19XkHvPA
Click to expand...
Inglis’ apparent “conversion” to climate change occurred in 2004. This is hardly news.
Click to expand...
given this forum is deeply rooted in catholicism, where I asked
phaster said:
the question,… climate change denialism is it gods will?! OR are the faithful being lead astray??
Click to expand...
even though inglis is not catholic

www.adherents.com/people/pi/Bob_Inglis.html

perhaps he too sought out an answer to the question (from a faith AND solid science based perspective),… I say that because he kinda talks about it in a presentation


…unlike throughout this thread (since the OP) where we see
phaster said:
all too often people think they smarter than they actually are!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
which sure looks like PRIDE (i.e. excessive belief in one’s own abilities)


sigh,…
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
The EU is taking an alternative route to their trade war with China
Click to expand...
Yeah, good luck with that approach. After they have (un)successfully threatened China over its lack of a carbon tax they can try threatening the US as well. I’d love to see how that one gets received.
 
Ender said:
Yeah, good luck with that approach. After they have (un)successfully threatened China over its lack of a carbon tax they can try threatening the US as well. I’d love to see how that one gets received.
Click to expand...
Yea, I think it’s a failed strategy. Better to focus on trade balances rather than moralize.
 

The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
…
 
Theo520 said:
repetitive (excessive) quoting
Click to expand...
given
How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the “illusion of truth” effect. Here’s how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like “A prune is a dried plum”. Sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn’t true (something like “A date is a dried plum”).

After a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. The key finding is that people tend to rate items they’ve seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar.

…stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.

www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
Click to expand...
so,… repetitive (excessive) quoting, of basic truths is a necessary teaching tool BECAUSE since the OP of this thread (for example) we see
phaster said:
all too often people think they smarter than they actually are!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
which sure looks like PRIDE (i.e. excessive belief in one’s own abilities)


NOTE some here who shared that they retired from a science career,… have voiced frustrating at lies put fourth as gospel truth
PetraG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Metis1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
bottom line,… as long as posts on CAF keep on including/repeating lies that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s (or some other nonsense for example)
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
1970s revisionist history?! WRT ‘coming ice age’ hysteria
Click to expand...
then I’m 99.999% certain,… that 97% of climate scientists would agree that repetitive (excessive) quoting of foundational scientific and religious truths is an appropriate teaching tool to counter deceitful denier propaganda about climate change!!!
 
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday assailed environmental “prophets of doom”, delivering an uncompromising message in Davos after Swedish teenage campaigner Greta Thunberg slammed government inaction on the climate crisis.

Thunberg was in the audience in the Swiss Alps to hear a typically bullish speech by Trump, delivered just before the start of his Senate impeachment trial in Washington.

The 50th meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) got under way in the ski resort with an avowed focus on climate change but with starkly different visions over global warming laid bare.

“We must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse,” said Trump, growling that “they want to see us do badly”.

He claimed that “alarmists” had been wrong on previous occasions by predicting population crisis, mass starvation and the end of oil.

Trump branded those warning of out-of-control global warming and other environmental disasters “the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers”.

Trump told reporters later that his Davos trip was devoted to meeting “the most important people in the world and we’re bringing back tremendous business”.

www.marketwatch.com/story/watch-trump-speech-live-from-davos-2020-01-21
Click to expand...
sigh,… seems like BAU w/ more ALTERNATIVE FACTS for the “in crowd”


in this case the cult faithful (i.e. the “in crowd”) are CEO(s) and corporate
apparatchik types who talk about the benefits of free-market capitalism, open societies AND environmental concern,… yet all too often seem that they’re willing to set those values aside if the economy keeps making them richer,… interesting times we live in w/ authoritarian hyper crony capitalism (AKA Trumpism) making its mark on history

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



just realized the reason most people don’t understand the basic science of climate change is because they are too distracted watching reality TV or NetFlix and then sharing their thoughts on social media
 
Last edited:
phaster said:
just realized the reason most people don’t understand the basic science of climate change is because they are too distracted watching reality TV or NetFlix and then sharing their thoughts on social media
Click to expand...
Or taking their opinions from right-wing politicians instead of the overwhelming number of climate scientists who well know what’s going on and why.
 
Metis1 said:
Or taking their opinions from right-wing politicians instead of the overwhelming number of climate scientists who well know what’s going on and why.
Click to expand...
If you’d like to test that theory all you have to do is raise an actual question of science. We can see whose position is more defensible.
 
So did any of these 1600+ posts bring up why historically, temperature shifts are seen hundreds of years ahead of co2 increases?

No?

How convenient.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Metis1:
Or taking their opinions from right-wing politicians instead of the overwhelming number of climate scientists who well know what’s going on and why.
Click to expand...
If you’d like to test that theory all you have to do is raise an actual question of science. We can see whose position is more defensible.
Click to expand...
I doubt @Metis1 will post an actual question of science because it is sufficient for him/her to trust that “the overwhelming number of climate scientists … well know what’s going on and why…”

No need to even try to understand what’s going on or why when that task can be offloaded to the “overwhelming number of climate scientists” at the same time as the far more critical task of bashing supporters of “right-wing politicians” can be indulged. 🤓

That way it is possible to portray oneself as supremely intelligent (by virtue of agreeing with the overwhelming number of climate scientists), and extremely virtuous (being on the “right” and progressive side of politics).

A two-fer, with hardly any energy expended, especially not energy of the bad kind that fuels the fossils arguing against the enlightened views of progressives.
 
Last edited:
I’m a scientist (now retired) who knows how the process works because I was in it and taught it for over 30 years. My interest in science-- real science-- even trumps my interest in religion-- truth be told. I left my old fundamentalist Protestant church decades ago because of their anti-science bent, especially dealing with the ToE.

If one doubts my recognition of the facts on climate change, then maybe they should do the homework, not only from peer-reviewed science sources but also visiting websites on this that can be found at the NAS, NOAA, NASA, Scientific American, and others.

And the willingness of some here to stereotype me defies not only common decency but also what Catholic social teachings actually say about publicly demeaning others. But I guess if Trump can repeatedly do it, why shouldn’t his followers just follow suit, right?

I wish this site would allow for “ignore” because some here just seem to be more intent on scoring a “victory” of sorts over doing that which is moral under our standards.
 
How would you respond to career scientists, including fellow Catholics (there was a Catholic saying this) saying that people are misinformed on an issue, they may very well believe is of critical importance?
 
Metis1 said:
I’m a scientist (now retired) who knows how the process works because I was in it and taught it for over 30 years. My interest in science-- real science-- even trumps my interest in religion-- truth be told. I left my old fundamentalist Protestant church decades ago because of their anti-science bent, especially dealing with the ToE.

If one doubts my recognition of the facts on climate change, then maybe they should do the homework, not only from peer-reviewed science sources but also visiting websites on this that can be found at the NAS, NOAA, NASA, Scientific American, and others.

And the willingness of some here to stereotype me defies not only common decency but also what Catholic social teachings actually say about publicly demeaning others. But I guess if Trump can repeatedly do it, why shouldn’t his followers just follow suit, right?

I wish this site would allow for “ignore” because some here just seem to be more intent on scoring a “victory” of sorts over doing that which is moral under our standards.
Click to expand...
What about the many scientists that say you are wrong? The media likes to make it look like 99% or whatever of scientists agree on man made climate change. That is simply a lie though.

And more importantly, I have never had any scientist be able to answer my question I posed recently. If the increase in temperature is due to increased concentration of CO2, why do we see temperature rise way before co2 concentrations rise? Sometimes as much as 400 years before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top