WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I found this graphic quite telling:
They are on my pro-death watch list…unless they change their position on AGW. Various CAF folks may have their take on things, and I have mine.

If Catholic Votet were truly pro-life (all human life included), then they would be against AGW and for mitigating it. If they felt there were a voting dilemma (which I feel and it hurts), then the might suggest something like this:
While both elective abortions and harming life through AGW are important issues to consider when voting, we feel the elective abortion issue is more important, but that voters in their daily lives should put forth efforts to mitigate global warming.
How difficult would that have been.

By refusing the accept AGW as a life-threatening issue they only show themselves to be hypocrites at best (being pro-life in one area and pro-death in another), or worse – just interested in one party’s other platforms, such as economics that favor the rich, and not in the least concerned about life issue.
 
They are on my pro-death watch list…unless they change their position on AGW. Various CAF folks may have their take on things, and I have mine.

If Catholic Votet were truly pro-life (all human life included), then they would be against AGW and for mitigating it. If they felt there were a voting dilemma (which I feel and it hurts), then the might suggest something like this:

While both elective abortions and harming life through AGW are important issues to consider when voting, we feel the elective abortion issue is more important, but that voters in their daily lives should put forth efforts to mitigate global warming.

How difficult would that have been.

By refusing the accept AGW as a life-threatening issue they only show themselves to be hypocrites at best (being pro-life in one area and pro-death in another), or worse – just interested in one party’s other platforms, such as economics that favor the rich, and not in the least concerned about life issue.
The solutions offered to mitigate the mythical AGW would cause more pain, death and misery in the world , especially in third world countries, than doing nothing even if it were true.
 
The solutions offered to mitigate the mythical AGW would cause more pain, death and misery in the world , especially in third world countries, than doing nothing even if it were true.
Total untruth. For the 100th time, we have reduced our GHGs by over 60% without lowering our living standard thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. Energy efficiency experts say we can reduce our GHG emissions in America by 75%+ without lowering productivity.

Poor countries greatly benefit from alt energy and efficiency/conservation, which helps them live healthier and wealthier lives…SAVES LIVES and MONEY.

It is a lie that somehow mitigating AGW will cause pain, death and misery. A #%$&#* lie perpetrated by the fossil fuel industries (that are busy destroying subsistence lands in Africa and S. America by their fuel extraction) and by people who just plain do not know.

A bold-faced #%$&#* LIE!

'Cuse my French.
 
Total untruth. For the 100th time, we have reduced our GHGs by over 60% without lowering our living standard thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. Energy efficiency experts say we can reduce our GHG emissions in America by 75%+ without lowering productivity.

Poor countries greatly benefit from alt energy and efficiency/conservation, which helps them live healthier and wealthier lives…SAVES LIVES and MONEY.

It is a lie that somehow mitigating AGW will cause pain, death and misery. A #%$&#* lie perpetrated by the fossil fuel industries (that are busy destroying subsistence lands in Africa and S. America by their fuel extraction) and by people who just plain do not know.

A bold-faced #%$&#* LIE!

'Cuse my French.
So you are suggesting that people in third world countries can install wind turbines and solar panels to meet their needs?
 
So you are suggesting that people in third world countries can install wind turbines and solar panels to meet their needs?
Or receive the same generous subsidies folks get in the developed countries, or that the alternate energy companies in those countries will be well-connected enough to receive the same generous subsidies as the alternate energy companies received in the US (whether or not they were ever able to actually deliver any products, much less turn a profit. Yeah, don’t see how producing no energy for billions of dollars was cost-effective) But the CEOs made a lot of money, so I guess that was nice…
 
Or receive the same generous subsidies folks get in the developed countries, or that the alternate energy companies in those countries will be well-connected enough to receive the same generous subsidies as the alternate energy companies received in the US (whether or not they were ever able to actually deliver any products, much less turn a profit. Yeah, don’t see how producing no energy for billions of dollars was cost-effective) But the CEOs made a lot of money, so I guess that was nice…
The best thing we can do for third world companies is find a way to economically get them coal and oil produced in the US. People are literally burning dung and forests for fuel while we sit on vast reserves of coal.
 
Total untruth. For the 100th time, we have reduced our GHGs by over 60% without lowering our living standard thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy…
And we all know that because you can do this, everyone can.

I can look out my window right now and see temperatures cooler then global warming says it should be.
But my testimony is simply dismissed as indicative of only myself and not the world in general.

Yet your testimony ā€œwe have reduced our GHGs by over 60% without lowering our living standard thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energyā€ is taken as something the entirety of the world can follow.

Your logic fails.
 
I’m not sure if JPII understood all that – he was, however, a very well educated and intelligent person – but I do know he had the expertise of the Pontifical Academy of Science at hand to help him understand the issues. He probably had one or more of the experts there read over his statement to make sure it was correct.
Once again I think you are reading into these statements what you wish to find. JPII spoke specifically about ozone depletion and you interpret that as being about global warming. The concern about ozone was over the effects of CFC’s, which appear to have been largely mitigated. AGW is of course concerned with CO2 and there isn’t much in JPII’s message that is relevant. I’ll also point out that his statement was published in January of 1990 while the First Assessment Report (FAR) from the IPCC didn’t come out until, what, July? Is it reasonable to assume that JPII felt it necessary to preempt the scientific report?
The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related ā€œgreenhouse effectā€ has now reached crisis proportions…(JPII)
Finally, even the FAR was more circumspect than your interpretation of JPII’s remarks. Not only did they not claim AGW had reached crisis proportions, they didn’t even claim that it was unequivocally happening.
  • Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years…; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.
Ender
 
Total untruth. For the 100th time, we have reduced our GHGs by over 60% without lowering our living standard thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. Energy efficiency experts say we can reduce our GHG emissions in America by 75%+ without lowering productivity.

Poor countries greatly benefit from alt energy and efficiency/conservation, which helps them live healthier and wealthier lives…SAVES LIVES and MONEY.

It is a lie that somehow mitigating AGW will cause pain, death and misery. A #%$&#* lie perpetrated by the fossil fuel industries (that are busy destroying subsistence lands in Africa and S. America by their fuel extraction) and by people who just plain do not know.

A bold-faced #%$&#* LIE!

'Cuse my French.
Easy now.

You have saved on emissions by doing things like having a windmill, solar panels and an electric car, all of which are designed to save emissions and all of which the government has subsidized, somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 all told. And all to gain not 100% but only 60% emissions reductions.

Are you truly maintaining that somehow the world’s population can be as massively subsidized as that, and should be, to gain so little?

And it’s not a lie that Obama’s ā€œmitigationā€ will not adversely affect people. As I hae mentioned before on CAF, it is reckoned that in my state the ā€œcoal banā€ alone will cost every person an additional $1400/year. Some people don’t have that much income in a month. And as with all estimates of the cost of government impositions, I expect that to be very optimistic.

One can argue that it’s all worth it if it was truly credible that MMGW exists and that it portends disaster. But to argue that nobody will be harmed by political ā€œmitigationā€ flies in the face of all demonstrable evidence that exists.
 
If Catholic Vote were truly pro-life (all human life included), then they would be against AGW and for mitigating it…
By refusing the accept AGW as a life-threatening issue they only show themselves to be hypocrites at best (being pro-life in one area and pro-death in another), or worse – just interested in one party’s other platforms, such as economics that favor the rich, and not in the least concerned about life issue.
This is a truly depressing position in that you seem unable to distinguish between actions you know are wrong (abortion) and actions you believe will be beneficial (mitigating AGW). You have elevated your personal opinions to the level of church doctrine; you describe those who differ from you on this issue as choosing an intrinsic evil.

To disagree on an open scientific question is not being ā€œpro-deathā€ in any reasonable understanding of the term. You call your opponents hypocrites, pro-death, favoring the rich, and not concerned about life. Did it ever occur to you to consider them simply mistaken? That after all is the more charitable position.

As your position becomes scientifically more difficult to sustain your comments are becoming more strident. Don’t confuse vitriol for debate.

Ender
 
Easy now.

You have saved on emissions by doing things like having a windmill, solar panels and an electric car, all of which are designed to save emissions and all of which the government has subsidized, somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 all told. And all to gain not 100% but only 60% emissions reductions.

Are you truly maintaining that somehow the world’s population can be as massively subsidized as that, and should be, to gain so little?

And it’s not a lie that Obama’s ā€œmitigationā€ will not adversely affect people. As I hae mentioned before on CAF, it is reckoned that in my state the ā€œcoal banā€ alone will cost every person an additional $1400/year. Some people don’t have that much income in a month. And as with all estimates of the cost of government impositions, I expect that to be very optimistic.

One can argue that it’s all worth it if it was truly credible that MMGW exists and that it portends disaster. But to argue that nobody will be harmed by political ā€œmitigationā€ flies in the face of all demonstrable evidence that exists.
One wonders sometimes if the passionate environmental activists are concerned if the world’s population can be sustained. It is difficult to imagine upending the world’s economy with no casualties, but maybe they have a better imagination than I. Knowing how populations are concentrated and their dependence on transportation and other energy services suggests that this would not be a harm-free course of action. I hear the call of ā€œsacrifices must be made.ā€ Of course I do not know this for a fact, because one cannot truly know another’s heart.

One thing is certain; we do not understand the climate system well enough for it to be the bedrock of major economic policy changes. This is nothing to be ashamed of, the problem is not trivial.
 
This is a truly depressing position in that you seem unable to distinguish between actions you know are wrong (abortion) and actions you believe will be beneficial (mitigating AGW). You have elevated your personal opinions to the level of church doctrine; you describe those who differ from you on this issue as choosing an intrinsic evil.

To disagree on an open scientific question is not being ā€œpro-deathā€ in any reasonable understanding of the term. You call your opponents hypocrites, pro-death, favoring the rich, and not concerned about life. Did it ever occur to you to consider them simply mistaken? That after all is the more charitable position.

As your position becomes scientifically more difficult to sustain your comments are becoming more strident. Don’t confuse vitriol for debate.

Ender
šŸ‘
 
…
The concern about ozone was over the effects of CFC’s, which appear to have been largely mitigated…
I actually read one paper which claimed that the observed warming was virtually all caused by the hole in the ozone layer, that it’s repair is the reason for the cessation in warming.
 
I actually read one paper which claimed that the observed warming was virtually all caused by the hole in the ozone layer, that it’s repair is the reason for the cessation in warming.
There was never a ā€˜hole’ in the ozone layer, but only a large area in which it was much thinner than the surrounding area. It was hyped up to ban CFCs so that companies that once held patents on them and saw them expire, could once again have patents on coolants by forcing people to switch to the new patented coolants even though they were less effective than the old CFCs were.

Ozone is simply O3 where O2 is more stable under lower temperatures. At higher altitudes the O3 is more stable because it is at higher energy levels. It is formed from the O2 that floats up that high because it is heated up by the sunlight.

If you could somehow scrape all the O3 off the atmosphere it would quickly replenish itself by the sun heating the lower O2.

It is no accident that the ā€˜Ozone Hole’ was over Antarctica; that is the coldest place on the planet with the lowest amount of direct sunlight on the planet. So of course it would form the lowest levels of Ozone and just because some scientists decide arbitrarily that lesser densities of ozone constitute a ā€˜hole’ doesn’t mean it actually is one.

We all know that the highest densities of CFCs and their use were in the Northern hemisphere. So why wasn’t the ā€˜hole’ over the Arctic instead of Antarctica?

The whole thing was nonsense hyped by a paid off corporate owned press.

And, once again, the public pays the price with higher refrigerant costs.
 
Easy now.

You have saved on emissions by doing things like having a windmill, solar panels and an electric car, all of which are designed to save emissions and all of which the government has subsidized, somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 all told. And all to gain not 100% but only 60% emissions reductions.
You don’t remember my many earlier posts. We had reduced our GHG emissions about 1/3 to 1/2 many years before we went on wind and solar and bought an EV.

That was the hard part in that it entailed many actions big and small. We must have done over 100 things, including a low-flow showerhead and toilet, insulation and caulking, cycling, walking, hypermiling, turning off engine in drive-thrus, buying a super-efficient frig that made our electric bill do a nose-dive. On and on and on the list goes.

Even though we lived within a mile of work, I was not counting that since we’d been doing that since the 70s in order to save resources for future generations.

We reduced, reused, recycled, bought recycled, became energy/resource efficient/conservative, understanding that all products have a GHG component in their raw materials extraction, processing, shipping, manufacture, wholesaling, retailing, shopping, and disposal. I’m not counting the fact that we did most of our shopping at garage sales and bought only used cars (all good environmental things to do), bec we had already been doing that all along in order to support siblings going to college and the old folks, etc.

NONE of this was subsidized, and some things cost more (without payback), but on the whole we were saving $1000s by doing these things – which quite frankly we would not have done if I had not become sensitized to how I may be contributing to the death and misery of others thru AGW. Knowing I was contributing to the harming and killing of people was like a fire under me, that got me out composting and planting, recycling, walking to work, and cycling (I’m very lazy by nature).

I was becoming an OCDS (3rd order) Carmelite at the time in the late 80s, and that is what really helped, a looking inward at my sins and flaws, and much prayer for God’s grace to overcome them.

Going on 100% wind-power electricity in 2002, buying the Volt in 2012, and solar panels in 2013 were the VERY LAST things we did. And with those measures I conservatively guesstimate we have reduced our GHG emissions by over 60% (understanding that GHGs went into the production of the Volt and solar panels); otherwise I’d be estimating even a greater reduction. (It also helps that we are at the end of our lives, having acquired all that we need, and don’t have to shop for non-food things hardly at all; I realize young people need to build up their nests.)

RE subsidies – I KNOW that coal and oil get huge subsidies & tax-breaks. My Republican rep’s aide up north told me so when I pinned him down, and I had read about it. But you go ahead and believe anything you want.

When you consider indirect costs for the military to ensure a steady oil flow and the externalities of harms and deaths from these sources (mainly out of sight, out of mind), then there is absolutely no comparison. The subsidies and tax-breaks alt energy gets are NOTHING by comparison and they should give more. But go ahead and believe what you will and I’ll stick to my knowledge and understanding.
 
RE subsidies – I KNOW that coal and oil get huge subsidies & tax-breaks. My Republican rep’s aide up north told me so when I pinned him down, and I had read about it. But you go ahead and believe anything you want.
Then I choose to believe the US Tax Code, the Department of Energy, and congressional budget reports. All of these show that there have been zero subsidies to coal or petroleum, while ā€œgreenā€ companies are getting hundreds of millions. If you want to look at tax breaks, oil companies receive on the order of $1-2 billion per year. ā€œGreenā€ companies? $4-5 billion. If we look at all tax breaks, subsidies, R&D investments, etc combined, then the picture is even more skewed: Oil companies get between $2-3 billion, while ā€œgreensā€ get $5-6 billion.

All that money for less efficiency, less capacity, and more (and more dangerous) pollution.
When you consider indirect costs for the military to ensure a steady oil flow and the externalities of harms and deaths from these sources (mainly out of sight, out of mind), then there is absolutely no comparison. The subsidies and tax-breaks alt energy gets are NOTHING by comparison and they should give more. But go ahead and believe what you will and I’ll stick to my knowledge and understanding.
That’s the first time I’ve heard having more is ā€œNOTHINGā€. How much more than oil should they receive? They’re already getting more than double. Should it be 4 times? 8? 10? Where will this money come from?
 
I encourage you all to attend the NYC climate march if you live close by, Sun, March 21st. See the film leading up to the march, DISRUPTION. CLIMATE. CHANGE. at watchdisruption.com/
Are you referring to the march where the protesters left tons of garbage in the streets when it was over?

I reiterate, man made climate change is a myth! These ā€œscientistsā€ are all backed by money from those who would personally profit from a worldwide conversion to green energy sources; Al Gore being the most heinous of them.

Look, I’m not denouncing the environmentalists’ movement. Our world is facing IMMENSE environmental challenges. Industrialized nations are polluting the air and water, and deforestation has eliminated green leaves which balance the oxygen/CO2 of the atmosphere, and act as natural air filters. If we don’t change our ways, every breath we take, and every sip we take, is going to bring harmful toxins into our bodies, and many will die from insidious diseases. So we DO NEED TO change our ways. But the alarmists who cautioned that the polar ice caps would melt entirely by now because of this global warming nonsense (the ice is actually expanding, not shrinking) are totally off base.

2 more degrees in 30 years isn’t going to kill us. Unbreatheable air and impotable water will destroy all of us.
 
Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012

Significance


Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends

pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/16/1318371111.abstract
 
I reiterate, man made climate change is a myth!
You can reiterate as much as you want. Are you a scientist, specialising in climate change? If yes, then lay out your arguments why it is not man made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top