Atmosphere Weather And Climate Barry Pdf Creator

It’s official. Progressives love Pope Francis. Their magazines, from to, are abuzz with excitement in light of the recent rumor that the pope is going to issue an encyclical on climate change sometime in the next few months. As a politically conservative American Catholic, to throw a fit about this, and I hate to disappoint people. So even granting that this is still just a rumor, I’ll go ahead and admit that I would not welcome an encyclical that made carbon emissions a much-discussed topic. It would smack of intellectual faddism, and it’s always depressing to feel that Church authorities are more focused on trendy social controversies than on the fundamental business of saving souls. Having said that, I’m not going to lose any sleep over a (possible) Church document on climate change.

Nor should you. As a political conservative, I care somewhat about political issues such as this. But as a Catholic (which is much more important), I mainly care about fundamental Church teachings on faith and morals. Climate change is only very distantly relevant to any of these, so nothing the Holy Father says about it is likely to muddy doctrinal waters to any great extent. The deposit of faith is safe.

Atmosphere Weather And Climate Barry Pdf Creator

Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get. SYNOPTIC CLIMATOLOGY — METHODS AND APPLICATIONS. First published: May 1974 Full publication history; DOI: 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1974.tb07430.x View/save citation; Cited by (CrossRef): 1 article Check for updates. Citation tools. Set citation alert. Citing literature.

Frankly, we should probably be grateful if the talking heads chatter a lot about Catholicism and climate change. After the recent, literally scandalous debates over divorce and family issues, it might be a relief to see the Holy Father devoting his energies to environmental concerns, rather than stirring up doubt and division over central doctrinal or moral questions. I understand of course why progressives are so excited over an anticipated row between the Roman Pontiff and their conservative enemies.

Atmosphere Weather And Climate Barry Pdf Creator

But there’s really no reason why this should happen, because when it comes to climate change, none of the controversial questions are of the sort that the Holy Father could definitively answer anyway. Most of the time, the figures tarred as “climate deniers” are simply people who insist on parsing the relevant ecological, economic and prudential questions with a carefulness that runs contrary to the zealous, unthinking activism that liberals would prefer to foster. Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views. On top of that, climate-change panic harmonizes with many secularists’ sense of drama and impending doom. We might see it as the apocalyptic side of the progressive’s tendency to “immanentize the eschaton.” Liberal sensitivities are most appeased when they feel that political forces are about to usher us all into a new, shining utopia provided nature doesn’t obliterate us first.

We may achieve the paradise of the perfect political order, but only if we can escape being damned for the sin of inventing civilization in the first place. Climate change, in other words, fits nicely with the pseudo-religious sensibilities of progressives. This is why people who understand nothing about the science will lobby aggressively for measures to reduce carbon emissions: because “science says so,” but also because it feels intuitively right to them that humans are on the verge of destroying themselves through environmental folly.

Meanwhile, within the scientific community itself there is an army of public rent-seekers (not to mention providers of alternative energy, and Democratic politicians) who have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a relaxation of public concern over climate change. They are quite happy to stoke their acolytes into an activist frenzy.

Taking all this together, there is plenty of reason to be cautious about jumping on the “science is settled” panic-wagon. Of course it doesn’t follow from this that climate change isn’t a real concern. It probably is, to some extent. But when we dig into the details, it turns out that “climate change” is a far more complex issue than environmental activists like to admit. Even identifying what the relevant questions are with respect to climate change is a challenging task.

Answering those questions is even more difficult. Let’s start by considering the most basic of questions. Is climate change a real thing? On the most basic level, the answer is clearly “yes.” No intelligent person is actually a “climate denier,” because we all understand that it is entirely normal for the earth’s climate to change. Climate stasis would be the real aberration; climate change is the norm.

The fact that it’s normal of course doesn’t mean that it’s not cause for concern. Changes in climate can cause all sorts of problems for human populations. But we shouldn’t act as though changes in climate represent some unique or unprecedented situation. Human civilizations have always had to adapt to changing weather patterns. Our harbingers of climatory doom are of course not satisfied with this answer. They suggest that the climate is changing more than it normally does, or ought to, or more than it would but for the adverse effects of human civilization. This is certainly possible, but the issue is hard to settle because of course we really don’t know what our climate would look like without human civilization.

Would Hurricane Haiyan still have hit the Philippines in a cleaner-energy world? Would it have been as bad as it was?

Any answer we might give to that question will be highly speculative. And for all we know, there may have been other terrible natural disasters that didn’t happen, owing to human impacts on climate. Once again, it would be unreasonable to dismiss entirely the possibility that humans are impacting their climate in an undesirable way.

But we also should not forget that weather has always been unpredictable, changeable, and occasionally deadly. Even insofar as we can identify a likely connection between human activities (most especially carbon emissions) and climate change, further questions remain. Are the changes in climate negative for humans? And if so, are the economic costs of any recommended policy changes worth the climatory benefits?

I suspect that Pope Francis’ remarks, assuming he does offer some, will center around two points. First, he will likely offer some general observations about the importance of exercising good stewardship over the natural world.

And second, he will remark on the injustice of the wealthy continuing to live in comfort at the expense of the “most vulnerable.” This is a favorite theme of his, and climate change may seem to fit the narrative since developed nations have higher “carbon footprints,” while poorer nations have greater difficulty adjusting to climatory change. But before concluding that there is a clear moral imperative to restrict the use of fossil fuels, we should keep in mind that the “most vulnerable” will also suffer from rising energy costs.

Without cheap fossil fuels, many more people will be hungry and cold. Abundant energy also tends to fuel job growth, which the Holy Father as a vital concern for modern societies. It’s reasonable for the Holy Father to use his moral authority to address ethical issues relating to climate change. However, he cannot claim infallibility, or even great expertise, in all the relevant empirical, economic and prudential questions that play into the controversies surrounding climate change. There is no reason for this issue to precipitate a standoff between the Holy Father and American conservatives. We should save our worrying for more important matters.

(Photo credit: AP) Tagged as,,,. Hello Rachel, You make many good points.

Even so, Catholics who are orthodox still have cause for concern. The possibly dire consequences of climate change are mere speculation. The contemporary assault on traditional morality regarding human sexuality has already been and will continue to be lethal to innocent human beings by the billions worldwide, as the children of God are dismembered and disemboweled through surgical abortion, or simply delivered and left to die in “induced labor” abortions, or killed by abortifacient “contraceptive” pills and various abortifacient drugs.

This is a matter of fact, not speculation. The Pope’s addressing climate change in an encyclical only exacerbates a situation that is already lethal to innocent humanity by the billions. This is due to the fact that it most certainly will not actually be read by millions who will simply accept the media spin on it as its true meaning and significance.

No matter what the Pope says in that encyclical, it will be spun as his blessing of the state’s assumption of even more authority over every detail of the behavior of its citizens in order to save them from the climate change bogeyman. We already are living under a self-deified state that has claimed for itself the authority to overrule God’s command, “Thou shalt do no murder,” and insists it is a mother’s right to take the life of her own child if he/she still resides within her. We have minors being counseled by state-authorized strangers to get “legal” abortions without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

Sometimes these abortions are botched, taking the life of the daughter as well as the grandchild of parents who only find out about all this with the news of their daughter’s death. Such is the extent of the state’s unjustifiable invasion of the personal affairs of its citizens. The Pope shouldn’t take any actions that will further legitimize the state’s outrageous usurpation of authority that rightly belongs to God alone, or belongs to lesser institutions and/or the people themselves according to the principle of subsidiarity inherent in Catholic Social Teaching. An encyclical on climate change will do just that, whether that is intended or not. Anti-life, anti-traditional morality, authoritarian, self-deified statists will be claiming they have the Pope’s blessing on some issues as they campaign in preparation for the November elections.

A climate change encyclical spun by their media allies will give them even more material to work with. The contemporary self-deified state has become the most dangerous threat to humanity in the history of the world, not climate change. The Pope should know that. So why would he publish a climate change encyclical when no matter what he says in it, it will be used to exacerbate an already terrible situation? That is a good point, Theodore Seeber.

And China, as a result of investing in education in the sciences and technology, has recognized the problem of climate change and its causes, and is attempting the transition to a clean energy economy. China still produces a great deal of dirty energy and is a prime contributor to greenhouse emissions, but one must give the nation great credit for good intentions. Baoding, an industrial Chinese city of about a million people once plagued with illness caused by filthy air and filthy energy sources, has become “carbon positive.” thanks to clean technologies like wind, solar, biomass, photovoltaic, and others (.) Carbon air pollution remains on of China’s leading health threats and causes of premature death, but clearly the nation is taking steps in the right direction. Rob, there’s nothing inherently wrong with what you are saying and of course it is good to study alternative forms of energy. There should be an all the above approach and let the merits of each source dictate regional needs and infrastructure, etc. The real problem most of us have is the outright dishonesty, name calling (Alinski protocol), and the rabid chicken with it’s head cut off, sky is falling, alarmist rhetoric that make the purveyor’s peddling it look like fools hiding behind an agenda rather than sane human beings.

If it weren’t so sad it would be comical. I am an engineer and in my entire life I have never seen anyone defend anything as flimsy as this with a life as we know it is going to come to and end mentality attempting to destroy anyone in the path who disagrees. I myself have investigated both solar and wind and have concluded that neither has a satisfactory ROI where I live, even with your subsidizing me. With our current carbon phobia I have no doubt that over the long term energy costs will sky rocket, technology will get better and prices for panels will come down which will give me pause to rethink and consider again in the future.

Imminent catastrophe has been a staple of the environmentalist movement for quite some time, if you recall the frantic hysteria of Paul Ehrlich in the wholly discredited Population Bomb or the slightly less hysterical Closing the Circle, by the late Barry Commoner. That’s too bad, because some good practical things were done to clean up rivers or minimize further air pollution. And though there are some scientifically credible people – such as Nobel Laureate physicist Freeman Dyson or Princeton physicist Will Happer – the movement has long been dominated by ideologues and bogus science.

Unfortunately they seem to be the ones the Pope is listening to. In fact Dick and chatted about it this morning and he reminded me again to be wary of people like you. He laughed out loud again telling me how absurd the latest claims in the IPCC report were stating that man was to blame for global warming with 95% certainty. He said that “the report has sunk to the lowest level of hilarious incoherence” and “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” I should have but I didn’t take him up on his bet that in 20 years global average temperatures will be far lower than they are now.

Probably the wisest thing he said that you of all people who claim to be involved in science should take heed of is “You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science.” I know, according to you he’s old and senile at the age of 74 despite being educated at Harvard and a Sloan Professor at MIT who has devoted his entire life to studying Meteorology. He told me not to only to listen to him, to call his good friend Ivar Giaever the Nobel Prize winner in Physics (that kind of stuff impresses you I know) so I did. We had a good laugh too at your expense unfortunately and he also warned me about people like you before going on to repeat himself in saying “this climate change orthodoxy has become some kind of a new religion for so-called scientists, and reminded that the data isn’t nearly as compelling as it should be for this kind of conformity”. He had to run, but told me to call Will Happer to get his thoughts which I did.

You know Will don’t you, the physicist from Princeton? His office is down the hall from where Albert Einstein used to reside. He laughed too and said you know “this anti CO2 crowd reminds of the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th amendment?

He wasn’t entirely mocking though and said that they have good intentions and that their heart is in the right spot even if their minds aren’t. His final comments before having to leave for a meeting were that the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it would be negligible. He also said hey, don’t just take my word for it, give Dr. Alan Carlin a call over at the EPA.

You know Alan don’t you, he also used to be a leader of the Sierra Club and is an ardent environmentalist. I tried but he told me he was under house arrest for daring to have contrarian views to the agenda so I had to look him up. I wondered why the EPA would try to silence such a brilliant mind because he dare to criticize the extremist views held by his administrative overlords that he said were not supported by the science. Hopefully someday the gag order will come off and he’ll be able to talk freely again.

And so I continued to search and found speeches given by Professors Ian Plimer, Patrick Michaels, Kiminori Itoh, Bjorn Lomborg, Freeman Dyson, and on, and on. A common thread began to emerge from all these highly respected, world renown and professional scientist that the SCIENCE IS FAR FROM SETTLED and that it appears to have been taken over by some agenda driven maniacs who have abandoned their scientific principles to grovel at the alter of this new age religion. They all seemed to be alarmed too that scientists appear to be losing their minds in behaving like politicians trying to destroy anyone who dares speak out against or are neutral on this subject, entirely the opposite of the way good scientists are supposed to react when defending their theories to be sure that they are indefensible and welcoming constructive criticism. What kind of scientist are you M, objective, or bought and paid for? It’s strikes me -as a non-scientist – to be at least as much about ideology as it is science.

The Climategate business in 2009 illustrates how low and dirty “leading” AGW enthusiasts are willing to play. More recently is the case of climatologist Lennart Bengtsson: But it’s hard to top the tactic of Michael Mann, of “hockey stick” fame, who simply sues any critics for libel. I’ve noted elsewhere in this thread that AGW enthusiasm is a new secular religion, but more and more it’s starting to resemble a cult. Yeah, I read that earlier in Spiegel this week too and should have included MM in my list replying to M. Cult is the precise word to describe this behavior.

As a scientist who is trained to try and maintain a sense of objectivity observing things I find it deplorable. Let’s face it, nobody likes criticism, but as scientists we are also trained to welcome it amongst colleagues because the more our theory withstands it generally the more it becomes accepted. When you hide or act in a non transparent way warning bells go off all over the lab. What’s really sad to me is thinking that M is in some position of education where is forcing this pseudo science onto impressionable minds as fact. Believe it or I’ll ridicule you, that’s the way professional behave. You actually run in to something similar where evolution is concerned, although I think I’ve got something of a handle there at least.

I have no problem with it from a faith perspective, since, as I can never convince some people, Catholics have believed since Augustine that God can work through secondary processes. Beyond that, I do think there remain some significant empirical and conceptual problems, especially since you have to take the measure of things that have already happened.

Witness, though, the panic and shrill hysteria when Tom Nagel, a lifelong atheist and philosopher of science, published Mind and Cosmos several years ago, in which he concluded that Darwin’s materialist approach to the development of species doesn’t stand up to scientific and logical scrutiny fundamentalist and religious obscurantist were among the milder epithets he had to endure. The reason, of course, is that some secularists have always seen evolution as a silver-bullet God killer, and for that reason it must always be squeaky clean, perfect beyond any conceivable doubt, since it makes belief in any deity impossible. I’m not yet sure what’s at work with AGW – perhaps not so much to kill God as to replace Him. Oh well, that’s enough for one night. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of this. As I briefly scanned this, I saw the claim that Dr. Alan Carlin, who has a doctorate in economics, not climatology, and has never been assigned to work on climate change, was under “house arrest.” I assume you have confused an opinion piece that equated Carlin to Galileo, who was in fact placed under house arrest.

Carlin was never placed under house arrest. After his spat with his supervisor, which was over whether a report he wrote should be included in EPA findings, Carlin remained employed by the EPA and was free to speak to the media, which he has done. Carlin has himself admitted to shoddy scholarship in producing the report. I didn’t get through much of the rest of your post, but obviously I distrust its credibility after the Carlin faux pas. Thanks, my mistake.

He’s won a number of high prestige awards, but not that one. I still say, though that he is a dissenter by the absolutist standards that currently inform AGW advocates, enough that the editors of the Atlantic went after him with this rather shrill piece, taking him down for his dissent: Elsewhere, he’s also complained about the intolerance of the environmentalist movement and the extent to which it has become a fire-in the-belly religious movement. Sorry, my citation isn’t handy for that one, but I’ll find it if you like. But thanks again for the correction. I would say he knows more than most of us, and is entitled to a “scientific” opinion on that basis. Sometimes it’s seemed that credentials don’t matter as long as a particular scientist supports the AGW “consensus,” But when, like James Lovelock, he changes his mind, his background – Lovelock’s Ph.

D was in a medical research area – it suddenly becomes an issue. No one had previously mentioned Lovelock’s age (95?), either but suddenly that seemed to be an issue. For that matter, James Hansen was originally an astronomer, before gaining a reputation on climate change. Anyway, it was very “scientific” of you to call be on that error, since we need to get it right, whatever our opinions. Stick around, it’s been fun.

I don’t think I take the point here, M. Certainly, popularizers like Al Gore, the BBC, and various high-profile, but very silly, people in Hollywood have played the catastrophe theme pretty regularly, as do many routinely on college campuses – just look at the list of guest presentations or course syllabi in scads of places to see illustrations of what I’m saying. James Hansen has also gone over the top a few times as well. Not to nitpick, but I think that “affect” is the word you want here. Are familiar with Judith Curry’s blog? If not, you might want to take a look at a site that regularly features articles and opinions by AGW “dissenters” who have pretty bone fide scientific credentials: •.

I know Judith Curry. I have opinions:-P Yes, there are a small number of scientists who still disagree with the conclusions of the wider community. Most of them disagree in very specific and narrow areas. Often narrow statements about specific issues are taken out of context. And, yes, there are “popularizers” on both sides of this issue — people with no scientific background but very strong opinions. Unfortunately, because some people have injected ideology into this issue, the topic is clouded with prejudice and outright lies. Some will reject anything Al Gore supports — on principle and independent of the facts.

Some, unfortunately, outright lie. The producers of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” unfortunately misrepresented the views of certain scientists and made them appear to oppose positions they actually support. Carl Wunsch was so upset by the way his views were distorted that he issued the following public response in a letter to the UK Channel 4: “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community.

There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs — thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant.

This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.” One has to distill the science from the hot air and look at that exclusively. The science is becoming more compelling and a fairly large number of former skeptics are changing their minds as the knowledge base grows. The consensus amongst experts in the field is massive. One can look at that in four ways. One can claim that there is no consensus, but that would be a lie. The consensus is overwhelming.

Then one can claim that the consensus is an enormous conspiracy, Well, there are people who believe the moon landing was faked. Thirdly, one can say that consensus is unimportant, but that would show a lack of understanding of the scientific process. All scientific theories and laws are based on consensus. Fourthly, a consensus can be wrong. Such periods of scientific revolution are very rare. In the area of climate change, discrepancies are diminishing, not increasing, and agreement is growing.

Time will ultimately tell, but the theory is rapidly gaining momentum as knowledge and evidence accumulate. I’m naive enough to believe that progress is ultimately reality driven. Thank you for correcting my mistake. You are correct — I should have used “affect.” •. Well, for what it’s worth, my own impressions and conclusions don’t derive from any of those defective sources. As I observed in another post in this thread, a “consensus” – whether of scientists or sportswriters – usually represents what is believed, not what is known.

I recall a “consensus” on marijuana use back emerged in the mid-late 1960’s, when people such as Lester Grinspoon of Harvard medical school reflected a powerful social and current – but hardly scientific – that, tut, tut, marijuana is harmless, and really, what’s the big deal? There you are: if someone with an endowed chair at Harvard Medical School says that pot is harmless, why are you still complaining? Of course, after actual research and experimentation, we now have a somewhat modified picture. If you visit Curry’s page for what’s being discussed there now, as opposed to the 2007 article you cited, you’ll see much vexed discussion about the authority with the non-scientific public about the “consensus” that is supposedly so compelling. They’ve also lamented the harsh treatment and ostracism that’s been meted out to apostates, such as James Lovelock.

Why was his age never an issue prior to his shift? If there’s a single difficulty I have with your posts here and those of others with your outlook elsewhere, it’s that you write much more like a passionate believer than you do a scientist. There’s an intensity that I believe is what Dyson had in mind when he noted back in 2008 that environmentalism had taken on the attributes of a very doctrinaire and sectarian religious movement, and that continues to trouble me a great deal. It strikes me as very “unscientific,” if you will. Full disclosure: I am no scientist, just an interested layman. Thanks for the discussion, in any case. Thank you, too, for the discussion.

You sound intelligent and reasonable. Yes, scientific consensus is to a large extent about belief because there is always more to be learned, but that belief is an informed belief. What else is there to go on? The opinion of two or three contrarians? Or a journalist with an ax to grind?

When the consensus among practicing climatologists that the earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions are driving most of that warming is at almost 100%, one has to accept that this is the best current assessment of the situation. One would have to have very solid grounds for dismissing that claim.

Scientific consensus is not the same as public consensus, often expressed by the media, or the claim of a single expert (such as Lester Grinspoon) or even of a small group of experts, however proficient. At present, even climatologists that dissent from mainstream views do not challenge the fact that Earth is warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Instead they squabble about, for example, the exact degree of negative radiative forcing caused by black carbon aerosols.

If climatologists are sometimes oversensitive, it may be because of experiences they have had. Some have been subjected to death threats by extremists, many have their findings misrepresented by ideologues, most have been accused of being bribed by (fairly small) grants to lie, and they no doubt feel frustrated when, after decades of study, people who know very little about the topic blithely dismiss their views with very little understanding (hence the “it’s the sun,” “it’s been cooling since 1998” type of arguments.) No doubt too, climatologists, like the rest of the population, have their share of difficult people, and money and politics add fuel to the fire. I simply hope that strategies implemented to address climate change will be humane, prosocial, and reality based.

Ricketts, I have areas of disagreement with Judith Curry (for example, she attributes only 50% of global warming to man-made causes,) but she is not as off-base as some might think. I offer this opinion piece that she wrote for the Washington Post for your perusal. In it, she makes clear that she is not a climate skeptic — merely that she has some fairly subtle disagreements with mainstream science. Please note that she makes it clear that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to this warming. She goes on to say that the current debate is not about this, but about the risks global warming presents to us all.

She concludes, “But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.” I think you’ll agree that she is distancing herself from climate “skeptics.” •. St G – The problem for those of us you would call “alarmists” is the willingness of some to simply ignore or dismiss the science that points to the adverse effects of a 3 to 6 degree increase in average global temperatures. All science is “debatable” but when you have an ebola crisis you need to respond with the best current data. You state that the data for climate change is flimsy yet 50 years of research on this topic is pretty consistent. As parents we need to consider the possible futures for our children and some of us do find the predictions of the climate models “alarming.” The predictions of ebola pandemics without adequate interventions are also alarming – thats why most nations agreed to do something sooner rather than later. The costs of alternative energies have to be weighed against the costs of catastrophic and irreversible climate changes caused by the continued use of carbon fuels.

What are your children worth??? Their souls and their faith in Christ, not men with political agendas. Why do you ask such a question, don’t you?

Really, consistent? How can you say that with a straight face. Within the span of 50 years when gone from ice age alarmists to we’re all going to drown hysteria. And facts just seem to get in the way with an ever evolving rationalization of how to explain why the latest data doesn’t fit the prediction models, like 2 decades now of virtually no change. That’s certainty you can believe in. As an engineer I can tell you that no good scientist tries to hide their data, manipulates it to try and get it fit preconceived notions, and fights with their life to discredit those that disagree with them.

Any time I see people behave that way my immediate instinct it observe with total distrust because the behavior smells of agenda, like a caged animal that feels threatened by questioning. If you are serious you will know that scientists tend to understate their research. If you are committed to your opinion that it is all a hoax there is nothing that would likely dissuade you from that view. That the pope takes it seriously though should give you some pause. That scripture calls us to be “stewards” of what God has given us should also give you pause.

Good scientist know that the strength of an opinion is not evidence of its validity. If you do not accept the research that has been done, can you think of a better research design that would be a fair test of the AGW hypothesis??? Would you accept data from the ARGOS ocean buoy system that is recorded automatically?

Would you dismiss it before you know what has been recorded over the last 50 years??? If you knew me you would probably be surprised to learn how conservative I am, and I don’t mean (just) politically. I go to pretty great lengths to be a good steward and invested considerable time looking into solar/wind energy for my home. I am a scientist well versed in the scientific method and have done a fair amount of reading on this subject. That anybody could say that this is certain science with all the flaws and call people names – if that doesn’t make you suspicious of motives then you are not a scientist. Scientists approach theories with skepticism to ensure that their theories are iron clad. People that try to ram things down your throat and tell you that it’s settled science or else be damned have agendas and/or feeding at the trough of grants.

In some ways I hope they are right, there are days where I feel like the second coming of Noah actually might be a good thing. I’ve been trying to do the same with my finger for some time as well. Completely apart from the scientific reliability of the AGW position, I think it presents people drawn to centralized, planned and often coercive mega-solutions just the angle they’re looking for. The “sustanability” movement on college campuses has exactly such world-saving tendencies and, although it marches under the banner of environmental repairs, has some pretty ominous imperial ambitions.

Something like Naomi Klein’s recent book, This Changes Everything which, surprise, surprise, finds environmental degradation – along with everything else in the world that’ wrong – attributable to capitalism. Sounds familiar, something like Barry Commoner’s thesis in his 1971 book, The Closing Circle, which attributed everything from racism to social inequality, to you-name-it, to capitalist degradation of the environment. What’s the solution?

Why getting rid of capitalism, of course, which will require big-time social transformation, very strict (coercive?) regulations on energy use and everything else, etc., etc., etc. No wonder my initial reaction to the claims of AGW enthusiasts was “Here we go again.” •.

Do you really think the virus fueling this epidemic is just a strain of authority fallacy? Maybe, but there isn’t one face on this one such as exists with ordinary personality cults like those who get a tingle up their leg (well, not anymore) with our current occupier in chief. I think the ingredients of their witches brew include a sprinkle of pride in thinking they are the saviors of the world, with two heaping cups of self-righteousness for believing they alone possess the wisdom to save mankind from their own folly (kind of like Dr Gruber), a binder of group think because you know dissent and contrarian views are dangerous, all together in a base of fear and loathing lest the funding for their broth be skimmed and the stew thickened. I think Glenn Ricketts was spot on in his reply too. Glad to see you showed some fairness in your discourse on EMD, now I have to go search for it.

The Newsweek article got written because we were in a cold period then. The source for that article is now a famous global warming alarmist.

As soon as the cycle changed and things began to get warm for a while, he switched and began telling us we were all golng to fry. They have news articles from 1880’s noticing how the seals have moved north, that say “The rivers don’t freeze over like they did in Grandpa’s day”. Then, 30 years later, the cycle changes and things were getting cold again.

Then, it switched back again. There are two big cycles – the Pacific decadal oscillation, and the same thing in the Atlantic. These operate over periods of 30-40 years and cause the swings. Are you for real, do you really believe everything you read in whatever filtered sites you go to. They are in panic mode because they realize that they have been sold a bill of goods that isn’t worth the wind it’s supposed to blow them to prosperity.

They are in scramble mode trying to figure out to reverse the damage, at least for now with regard to shutting down their nuclear reactors prematurely. Granted there’s not a lot of press about it because there’s a bit of egg on their face to deal with, but seek and you will find. They are also tremendously jealous of our fracking and energy independence success which occurred despite their best efforts to prevent (here and there). I tried to rationalize geothermal for my 1/2 acre grass farm. The contracter told me $30,000 -$35,000 to re-duct my 1950’s era house to make it compatible.

My next oil burner, he estimated would be at least 30% more efficient than the present unit (a smiliar BTU capacity unit now comes with a.6 gal/m nozzle, rather than 1.0). Since we use about 1800 gallons per year, even IF I needed no supplemental heat souce, the ~$50,000 installation cost required to install geothermal produces a payback period of 9.26 years @3.00/gal, not counting the time value of money. Now home oil is LESS than $3.00 gallon. If I figure the alternjative against 1100 gallons per year, the payback is 15.15 years. I think as energy prices increase, in response policies enacted, I’m going to consider a portion of my payments as “social justice”. Since there’s only so much money, I guess the Church will have do accept some of some of my energy payments as an in lieu contribution.

I’ve got you beat by about 100 years, my farm homestead was built in 1860 with American Chestnut, hand hewn. The previous owner after the farmer converted it to heat pump, all electric (there’s a natural gas main ~100 yards away feeding the residential development that has overgrown the old field that once was grazed by methane producing bovine). I haven’t given up on alternatives, just a hiatus. I have full confidence that electricity will skyrocket once the middle class crushing agenda is fully implemented on us. When I do, it will be my contribution to social justice too, whatever I end up doing. What’s sad is that his tactics are essentially straight from his idol Alinski and his playbook Rules for Radicals. He/they can’t stand the middle class as they are a bulwark of independence that threatens their goals of total state control.

Every time he opens his mouth he mocks us with sweet lies of persuasion leading the blind down a path to their own imprisonment of state dependency. I will give him and his machine credit in the brilliance of execution. Most lemmings don’t even know what is going on and how they are being manipulated. You have an obligation to all your brothers and sisters, sinners, not sinners, law abiding and otherwise.

It is not up to us to impart punishment. It IS up to us however to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and provide shelter for the vulnerable.

So yes, if a hungry family comes to my door I will help them get on their feet. Because that is what Jesus told us. I have in fact given a suitcase full of clothes to a migrant family on the street and a book with English lessons, as well as a list of useful phone numbers to get their kids schooled and fed. It took you 11 days to come up with that lachrymose exercise in activism described as compassion. I don’t believe for a minute that you will let strangers in your house and if you do, you are a reckless idiot. My first duty is to protect my family, not to put them at risk from strangers who might not be what they seem to be.

You gave a “suitcase” full of clothes? Well whoopee for you. Me, I don’t brag about what I give, but I lets just say, its a lot and better than a suitcase of things I’ve tired. Jesus never said anything about helping people to break the law.

The main use of energy in the Vatican is indeed air conditioning and lighting. Museum quality air conditioning is important, you’re talking tenths of a unit temperature and humidity control. 40 years ago what Pope Benedict XVI did with solar panels on the roof and hidden wind generators and banks of batteries would have been impossible; wind generators and solar panels simply were not that efficient. I compare it to where I work, Intel Hawthorne Farms campus. We’re about 1/100th the size of the Vatican, but due to what we do, lights and air conditioning are extremely important around here, especially in the clean rooms.

We spend about $6000/day on lighting and air conditioning around here, tons of energy usage, and that’s even excluding the manufacturing equipment. I think this may be in keeping with Pope Francis’s focus on third world issues. Some 30% of the world’s human beings live close enough to coastlines and at elevations where they may be threatened by sea level rise; some extremely low-lying populations on remote islands have already been wiped out. In other words, expect this encyclical not to focus on science, but rather continue the theme of first world big business exploiting third world populations for fun and profit. Of course Pope Benedict XVI also wrote an encyclical on that- _Caritas in Veritate_.

The Vatican is NOT carbon neutral. The pitiful amount of renewable energy that it employs in the form of solar photovoltaics has a capacity factor of a mere 20%, which means that 80% of the time when power is needed, it is not available. Furthermore, the manufacture, use and decommissioning of the solar photovoltaics which the Vatican uses involves 50 dangerous chemicals, including potent greenhouse gases, carcinogens, and toxic chemicals. The chemicals range from arsenide to cadmium and lead, sulphur hexaflouride (the most potent greenhouse gas known), thiourea (carcinogen), selenium hydride (highly toxic), nitrogen trifluoride (significant greenhouse gas), indium phosphide (known carcinogen), hydrofluoric acid (inhalation or skin contact can be fatal), hexafluoroethane (greenhouse gas), germane (extremely toxic), chromium VI (known carcinogen and toxin), carbon tetrachloride (carcinogen), arsine (carcinogen with high toxicity), and others.

If you want safe, clean, low cost, carbon neutral electrical power, then this is the solution which has a capacity factor of 92+%: •. The Vatican has beautiful gardens. Without carbon dioxide they wuoldn’t exist. Besides, there is no real proof that any increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bad or much less that it is caused by human activity. More probably it is caused by the sun and its effects on the oceans. As for the hype about global warming, in fact what we have in the last 13 years is global cooling.

What’s so bad about an increase of 1 degree celsius in temperature? Nothing, and in fact there are positive sides to it. Did you know that the Vikings used to cultivate many crops in Greenland? The Pope has no business getting involved in this kind of discussion among scientists where there is a stack of ideology and political agendas.

Climate change has always existed and will always exist long before humans came along. The Vatican can’t be neutral in any given moral debate.

The Vatican exists to be on the side of God. This means that politics don’t matter to the Vatican, to the Pope. It is undeniable that some things Pope Francis has said have damaged the political strength of conservatives. It is undeniable that some things Pope Francis has said come down extremely hard on liberals. He’s definitely said some very imprudent things. But God isn’t Prudent.

God is Merciful. When Men in their prudential judgement reject God, the Pope *must* come down on the side of God, every time. That is the job description of the Vatican. Makes me nervous too. I heard about this new view of the God of Surprises, and the only thing I could think of was NEGATIVE evil surprises.

As I was considering the purpose of such an encyclical, I thought that Francis seems more worried about building a coalition with the Left than he is about the Evangelion. As in: “let’s work together where we can and agree to disagree where we can’t.” Of course, Francis has made clear that his disagreements with the Secular Power will be understated (he’s already made clear that American conservatives should not push so hard on divisive social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage) and that he will go out of his way to reach agreement with the spirit of the age where he can (as in his welcoming attitude toward the Kasper Proposal). So, where will this courting of the Left end up? With the Church reduced to irrelevancy (at least until a different and better Pope comes along). The Left has co-opted all the Mainline Churches and they have no say any more except when the Left is getting religious opposition and needs to trot out a useful idiot of the clerical kind.

IOW, once the Catholic Church is shut up and becomes a cheerleader for the Left, the Left will begin to assess the Church in the same way their comrade Joseph Dzugashvili did: “how many divisions does the Pope have?” Because the answer is none, the Pope’s opinion will be given at most lip service and then only on issues where he shares the opinion of the Left’s coalition. Francis has proved himself to be the leader of the American Left Progressive wing of the Christian Church.

His snubbing of Archbishop Caput of Philadelphia in the latest distribution of cardinal hats that issued one to every remote outpost of his realm; surprisingly they did not find a churchman on Gilligans Island in order to hand him a red hat, is the canary in the mine. This papacy is a disaster to the Church and as a faithful Catholic I can only hope that God sends us a new Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena. Dominic or Francis de Sales to save the institutional Church at this time. It is time to pray very hard for the Church it is going in to very difficult times and we are sure to witness the ‘bare ruined choirs” of American Catholicism by the time this Argentinian Socialists is finished.

Yes my friend. That is the reason as reported, And further Chaput was made by PF a member of thee council of the Laity, as the only bishop amongst Cardinals. Im sure he is next in line VATICAN CITY — Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia was among those appointed by Pope Francis Feb. 6 to the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Archbishop Chaput is also the only bishop appointed to the council who is not a cardinal, although one other appointee, Archbishop Orani Tempesta of Rio de Janeiro, is a cardinal-designate who will be given the red biretta at the Feb. 22 consistory.

Read more: •. The Pope has proven himself to be a real man of God. The kind of Catholicism we are taught in Argentina, which is the kind Jesus meant.

It’s about helping others, about being nice, about sharing, not about judging and prescribing lifestyles to people, it’s about healing the sick and giving way our own possessions because poverty is virtue. We sang in our churches. We were told that people make mistakes, and what’s important is to be a good person, to give to the needy, to be sincere, and to be kind to people and animals.

Catholicism doesn’t exist to appease American Neo Cons. Are you sure you are not a dissenting “catholic” yourself, Dr. You show little respect for the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

The last three popes have all been “green” and have spoken of the problems of climate change. As time passes, the science has become increasingly clear.

Now, at this stage in the development of the science, the pope MUST honor his obligations to Catholic social responsibility and take a clear stance. In 1970, there was still an excuse for invincible ignorance. Today one truly has to show vincible ignorance to avoid grappling with the science of climate change and how it connects with Catholic social teaching.

A Catholic response to climate change now goes well beyond the imperative to care for God’s creation and rests firmly on the themes of solidarity, the life and dignity of the human person, the call to family, community, and participation, human rights and responsibilities, and preferential options of the poor and vulnerable. To maintain that this pontificate is “confused” is a disrespectful and slothful attempt to slough of one’s Catholic faith in favor of an extremist politico-economic agenda. Can true Catholics not put their uncharitable contempt for liberals aside long enough to embrace their faith and take the time to actually consider what our Holy Father is saying? It wouldn’t hurt you either to read some of scientific articles casting dispersion on the so called manufactured and manipulated “evidence”. These dissenters are some pretty brilliant minds who were darlings among their colleagues before they dared speak out against the machine and subsequently thrown under the bus. As a scientist I can tell you that nobody with credibility thinks that they are above criticism, and in fact good science welcomes criticism to strengthen their theories.

This is the most shaky science that has been put before humanity that I have ever witnessed in my life, certainly at this scale. There is data that could be discussed, but when people try to ruin people’s careers for offering contrary views, are called “flat-earthers” and “science-haters” it smells rotten to the core. Sure you will. Then I’ll waste more time, as I’ve done in the past, showing that your conclusions are unscientific and nonsensical. After that, you’ll dismiss all my hard work as “too liberal” or whatever, and you’ll carry on in the same old blissful ignorance. Why don’t you give Pope Francis and the best scientific minds of the century on this subject a chance and actually open your mind a crack to the science and the moral responsibility of this topic? Oh, I get it.

You’ll put your stubborn ignorance and pride before your Catholicism and scientific integrity. Your tone and manner of your reply reveals all that needs to be said about your biases. Honest scientists aren’t above peer review and critique of their theories unless they are afraid of having their federal funding cut off.

Political hacks aren’t above name calling though. Notice I never implied or was even curious about your political affiliation. So, you can start by reading the views of Richard Lindzen, you know, the Sloan Professor who chaired the Meteorology Dept at MIT until last year.

His colleagues thought pretty highly of him, and the school I believe is pretty well respected too. Way to many to name them all, but you can continue if you care to read opinion pieces that are different from your own. Richard Lindzen is 74 years old. It is hard to find a climate change denier (which he, for the record, is NOT) under the age of 60. Linden correctly accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect — his position is merely a little more muted than that of more current researchers. He in fact agrees that increased greenhouse emissions cause radiative forcing that lead to global warming. All he claims is that climate sensitivity is somewhat lower than is currently believed.

Unfortunately some of his listeners are confused by his statements. A clarification can be found at •. I’ll grant you that his retorts strike a more neutral tone than the usual rabidness that accompanies this topic, the mark of a true professional and gentleman. He is quoted often though as calling defenders of the mother earth faith for what they are, climate alarmists.

Do you have any scientific background at all M? I’d like you to site any instance of significance where the source data has been manipulated to the extent it has here, the degree of alternative theories that have been ignored, where facts that contradict the model predictions are continually spun so that the agenda, I mean theory, is never questioned and the support is unwavering by the benefactors, and where colleagues that dare to offer critiques are ridiculed and careers railroaded to the extent here? I could write an article for Scientific American where I described all the things that have taken place in the name of so called climate change research disguised as something apolitical and I guarantee it would either never be published or it would be the laughing stock of every scientist who read it the world over. When I point out that Lindzen is 74, Happer is 75, and Dyson is 91, I am not suggesting that they are senile. I am suggesting that the science has developed since they retired (and Happer and Dyson didn’t work in the climate change field anyway — Happer worked in optics and Dyson was a theoretical physicist who claims he knows nothing about climate science.) Scientists actively working in the field are becoming more, not less, convinced of the problems related to global warming. Consensus has increased as older scientists have retired and younger ones are immersed in the current research. The “science” is actually being carried on by younger lights such as Judith Curry, David Legates and Patrick Michaels.

In any case, a “consensus” doesn’t represent “science” so much as it does opinions some scientists are willing to venture when journalists wanting a quick opinion call, or surveys with skewed questions are administered. And as the Climategate affair demonstrates, there are more than a few AGW proponents who are willing to play dirty. As Einstein once famously observed, it takes only a single to explode an entire “consensus.” •. If simply publishing a paper could prove all the so called experts wrong then everyone would be Catholic by now, as the Church is the one true faith and the publications by Saints are many. We see that this is not true because people cannot leave their biases behind to go search for the truth because most often their bias is the falsehood that they wish to believe.

In regards to this, the Atheist have supposedly refuted all the Churches arguments for the existence of God. They could say, “We’ve heard them all.” So when I see it in your writings it really smells a bit of pride, it appears that you take the same tone as the Atheist in regards to Climate Change.

Publishing something true that is against popular opinion or ‘the consensus’ is almost a guarantee that it will not see the light of day, even among the ‘scientific community’. For example, if the issue is about homosexuality, whereas no one is born Gay, then it will never see the light of day (in many places) no matter how good the scientific evidence is. And on and on it goes with the list of issues •. Why don’t you start by explaining to me where you stand on Catholic issues of social justice and the message of the last three popes on climate change, since that is the topic of this thread and what is most relevant here? I find it interesting that you intrusively question my Catholicity because I embrace the words of our current pope! I live a very traditional Catholic family life.

This is easy for me because I want lots of children, am straight, am happily married, and consider myself “good with kids.” I have a very happy, very stable, very traditional marriage and a rowdy boatload of wonderful children. I avoid judging people on the grounds of their private morality. However, in terms of social justice, our behavior has a greater ripple effect, so social commentary becomes much more important. Freedom of conscience applies more strongly to very personal decisions than it does to social decisions. It would be narcissistic to ignore Catholic social teachings because “they don’t effect me.” This is why I feel more inclined to speak out about Catholic social issues such as climate change than about very personal moral choices.

For the record, I don’t think population growth is incompatible with clean technology. I also don’t think every single married couple should be forced to have children or very large numbers of children regardless of circumstances. I don’t use contraception, but I don’t judge others on this issue. Not everyone is blessed to have the marital, personal, and financial situation that I have. As Pope Francis has said, there is no need to change Church teachings on contraception, but they must be applied with mercy. I do, however, find myself urging those who appear too lazy or too ideologically extreme to even consider what the Church teaches about social issues. They are condemning others to great suffering.

How about you? How do you follow Catholic teachings in your own personal and social life? How many children do you have?

You are making a huge leap by assuming that Catholic social teaching demands adherence to a pretty discredited scientific theory that cannot predict anything. After all that is the only value of scientific theories – that they are able to predict what will happen if certain events occur. None of the global warming theories have been able to do that. And NO, the Pope has not called for an application of the doctrine against contraception with mercy. He has never said such a thing. If he had, he essentially would have said that we can ignore Catholic doctrine where it pleases us, and no Pope would be that careless. Perhaps you read it in Grist?

Don’t be a raving lunatic M, it’s unbecoming and honestly, not too professional either. Admit your biases and learn about dissenting views. No scientist worth his salt would ever try to destroy another for critiquing his research – those that do reveal their biases or self loathing fears.

The more one’s theory stands up to defense the stronger it becomes and is accepted. This is about as flimsy as they come. The hair on your neck should stand up straight when you hear anybody who resorts to calling names like flat-earther or denier, it is so unseemly. This is the extraordinarily limited and sadly pathetic way DRE and certain others here argue. They throw insults because that is all they have. The primitive efforts of such people to “disprove” the science are easily refuted by the links I have provided.

Nobody has yet addressed an argument made in one of those links. Instead they attack me personally. The onus is on the anti-Catholic, anti-science folks here to prove to me that THEY are right and every major science academy in the world is wrong.

That’s how science works. Yes, we all know that a consensus can be wrong. That happens in very rare periods of scientific revolution. AGW is showing no signs of being of being anywhere near revolutionary status. The science is getting stronger. Evidence is increasing, not diminishing. The consensus is growing as scientists change their minds in the face of new evidence.

In fact consensus and certainty are at the highest point now than they have ever been. Let’s again take a look at what Scientific American has to say about consensus in climate change: “A consensus view in any field of science represents humanity’s best guess as to what’s going on. The guess might well be wrong, but what else is there to go on? It’s not as though there are answers in the back of the book to look.

People often say that science isn’t a democracy; scientific questions aren’t decided by majority rule. Well, then, what are they decided? Experiments and observations, surely. But who runs the experiments and makes the observations? Who interprets the outcome? Who double-checks them?

It is a social process. If as a scientist I disagree with the consensus, I have to be very sure of myself to put my own judgment up against the collective wisdom.

And if there’s one thing scientists learn very early in their careers, it is that such supreme self-confidence is usually misplaced. License Plate Recognition Source Code Copyright more. Nearly all scientists have painful memories of being pounced on in an oral exam for giving a sketchy answer, or presenting a paper before hundreds of people that turned out to be dead wrong.

Most experts in a field realize that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. They learn to doubt their own judgment. If I get one answer and everyone else gets a different one, my first inclination should be that I’m wrong, not that everyone else is. Sometimes, the individual is right and the community is wrong.

It happens in times of scientific revolution, which by definition involve the overturning of a consensus view. But such revolutions are rare. We remember Einstein because he was unusual. Climate science shows no signs of being in a revolutionary phase. Evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger with time.

Discrepancies are diminishing rather than increasing. Technically, scientists are correct to assert that their field has reached consensus.” •. Let’s just say I have a lot more confidence in the science than I do in the few dissenters on this board. It is not I that is biased.

It seems most hypocritical that you object to terms like “denier” but you haven’t commented on “chicken little” or “climate alarmist” or “paid shill for George Soros.” I urge you to make an honest study of the scientific literature. It is difficult for a non-climatologist to understand, but it should disabuse you of the more simplistic attacks on science and Catholic social teaching. If I’m not objective about the science, all I ask is that you prove me wrong. If you’re so sure of yourself, go ahead and prove it. Let’s see who is the objective one here.

To me, science is pure. Clean, and objective. Throwing mud at those of us who have taken the time to study AGW is not objective. It is mean-spirited and uncharitable. As I’ve said before, the current state of the science should be accepted, even with reservations, in the absence of contrary evidence.

You are unable to prove contrary evidence. All your arguments are purely subjective and largely uncharitable.

It’s not so much about being right or wrong, it’s about being honest. Obviously there are interesting data trends, but to ignore the continuous data manipulation, obfuscation, personal attacks of those holding contrarian views, the failure to admit model inaccurate predictions, the politically charged hyper fever, and the money trail from those who stand to profit richly and who are closely aligned with their political friends is to do so at ones peril. I actually think the second coming of Noah (not movie sequel) might not be such a bad thing, some days. As a scientist, if you indeed are one, you of all people should be versed in the scientific method and approach things with a critical eye. If the hair doesn’t stand up on the back of your neck when someone calls you names for not being on the train of settled science, well then I guess you are gullible enough to believe anything someone tells you as fact. I in fact am neither an alarmist or a denier, but when I observe people act unprofessionally and as if they are hiding an agenda then yes, call me skeptical. And it is a fact that the certainty of current climate change models is statistically poor by any objective certain science standard.

The best scientific minds of the age? You again show your total lack of understanding of the issue. You have been told by someone that these are the best minds of the age, and you believed them. You have not examined them. Have you heard about climategate and hide the decline? Are you aware of the limitations of using tree ring chronologies?

Are you aware that the historical record shows a delay of hundreds of years between rise in CO2 and temperature rise? You have been taken in, I am afraid. Try reading things from the other side. I don’t think you understand what scientific consensus is. If you did, you would understand that it’s not something I personally could declare! What scientific consensus means is that the overwhelming majority of experts in a field support a particular conclusion, in this case the findings of the latest IPCC report, and those conclusions are endorsed by every scientific academy in the world. Over 97% of peer-reviewed papers published over the past 20 years support the basic theories behind AGW, and consensus is growing, nor diminishing, as more is learned.

Yes, there is disagreement among climatologists, but not about the facts that the current warming trend is outside what would be expected by natural variability or that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. You also seem to assume that science ends once a scientific consensus is reached. This too is nonsense.

Science is an ever-evolving process. There are multiple areas of research in climatology underway into, for example, EESC-based regression analysis for ozone trends and analytic derivation for rapid and steady state changes of the hydrologic cycle, but not about the underlying theories. The degree of consensus on AGW increases with expertise in the field. I was asked what my credentials are.

I notice that none of the dissenters have been asked the same question. They simply arrogantly assume they are right, and that I, despite having the weight of modern science on my side, am wrong. I have tried to respond with humility. I am not going to waste any more of my time defending MY scientific knowledge or MY Catholicity. On the issues under discussion in this thread, I am on very solid ground.

Once again, the onus is on YOU, as the one disagreeing with the state of the science, to prove that I, Pope Francis, and the overwhelming majority of climate experts — are wrong. I’m bored with your insults and prevarications and personal attacks. PROVE your claim. The ball is in your court.

I have studied the science rigorously. Yeah, and I had an aunt that thought she had studied medicine “rigorously”. Unfortunately, her idea of rigorous study was reading Prevention magazine. I suspect her knowledge of medicine was still better than your knowledge of science. Oh, for the good old days when she was telling us conventional medicine wasn’t addressing the great scourge of the world, chocolate. You know, before the discovery of the antioxidant and vasodilative effects of cocao polyphenols.

No, you found a kindred spirit in M, assuming you aren’t just a paid shill. All we get from you trolls is claims of authority.

Did you read her comment with the age bigotry? Don’t tell me “Koch Brothers” is science or “dirty oil” is either. She claimed to have a background in Math, she said “put up or shut up”, but failed to answer two questions which would show that she had some knowledge of math to differential equations. M’s been here before and its always the same-she’s either a paid jammer or in desperate need of attention, calling into question others while failing to exhibit any trace of coherence in her argument. Don’t make me laugh.

Of course there is such a thing as scientific consensus! In case it’s escaped you, we’re not in the 14th century. This is in fact the 21st century.

Perhaps this article, taken from the Scientific American blog, will help you understand what a consensus is (although ): “A consensus view in any field of science represents humanity’s best guess as to what’s going on. The guess might well be wrong, but what else is there to go on? It’s not as though there are answers in the back of the book to look. People often say that science isn’t a democracy; scientific questions aren’t decided by majority rule.

Well, then, what are they decided? Experiments and observations, surely. But who runs the experiments and makes the observations? Who interprets the outcome? Who double-checks them?

It is a social process. If as a scientist I disagree with the consensus, I have to be very sure of myself to put my own judgment up against the collective wisdom. And if there’s one thing scientists learn very early in their careers, it is that such supreme self-confidence is usually misplaced. Nearly all scientists have painful memories of being pounced on in an oral exam for giving a sketchy answer, or presenting a paper before hundreds of people that turned out to be dead wrong.

Most experts in a field realize that the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know. They learn to doubt their own judgment. If I get one answer and everyone else gets a different one, my first inclination should be that I’m wrong, not that everyone else is. Sometimes, the individual is right and the community is wrong.

It happens in times of scientific revolution, which by definition involve the overturning of a consensus view. But such revolutions are rare. We remember Einstein because he was unusual. Climate science shows no signs of being in a revolutionary phase.

Evidence for anthropogenic warming is getting stronger with time. Discrepancies are diminishing rather than increasing. Technically, scientists are correct to assert that their field has reached consensus.” As always, though, feel free to overturn the consensus with your brilliant original research and usher in one of the greatest revolutions ever to grace science. So if they’re wrong, prove it. That’s all I ask of you.

I subscribe to several peer-reviewed scientific journals about climatology. I have studied every IPCC report in detail. I am fortunate to have a niece with a PhD in the field and a son working on his PhD in an energy-related field. The counter-arguments I have seen, here and elsewhere, are ludicrous. They are so commonly made that they’ve been collected and roundly refuted at sites I have provided for your edification. It’s clear you’re all about ideology and politics, at the expense of your faith and your reality testing. But by all means DISPROVE the theory of AGW.

Not insult or stereotype or sulk — DISPROVE! Until such time, I can’t take you seriously on the subject. But if I were to claim that the surface of the moon is made of green cheese and all these arrogant scientists who claim otherwise are just elitists who are not real scientists or good reasoners, nobody would take me seriously unless I somehow managed to prove that the moon’s surface is indeed made of green cheese. That’s the position you’re in with denying climate change. The body of evidence showing global warming and resulting climate change is enormous. The usual objections one reads at Newsman or similar are easily swatted away. Someone here was actually claiming that there has been no warming for 17 years!

With 2014 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, after 2010, disproving that is easy. You’re going to have to come up with something very radical to overturn what is now well-established science. I believe in the findings of the IPCC, the Pontifical Academy of Science, every major scientific academy, and the vast body of scientific literature to which I subscribe.

I am quite willing to change my mind in the face of contrary evidence. I haven’t seen any from you that is credible.

Hence I must assume that it is you that is credulous. If you want to convince me or to change the overwhelming scientific consensus, go for it. Right now, you’re simply wasting time with your insults and distractions. “The teaching power of the Magisterium ” – teaching what? Climate change connects with Catholic social teaching. Physicists can now don vestments, and in the quiet sanctum of the confessional absolve me for preferring plastic to paper ten times last month, three uses of non biodegradable products and failing to recycle twice?

To the Magisterium I would say, teach me about virtue and the virtues of frugality and simplicity, yes. Lead me away from positivist schemes that complicate my already difficult life with a “politico-economic agenda” that seeks to re-organize whole economies based on a false vision of the perfectibility of the material world.

“So what?”????????? Catholic social teaching is so unimportant to you? Well, that’s your choice, and, like a good cafeteria Catholic, you can claim freedom of conscience trumps any Church teaching, upon which, no doubt, you will also accept that those OTHER Catholics are free to disagree with OTHER Church teachings, as they so choose. All I would say is that social teaching is not simply about you.

It is about society, the commonweal, all of us. And if climate change is hurting society, the most Catholic response would be to become part of the solution.

It’s obviously nine question mark important to you. But if you can ad hominem me a “cafeteria Catholic” (so much for scientific objectivity) I can call you a Catholic Pharisee.

Those were the white sepulchers, you will recall, who laid down rules so complex they barred the door to the common man, and yet would not themselves enter through. Their rules – nine question mark important to them too – made life unlivable for so many. Gratefully Our Lord swept them aside, and not too nicely either. I seriously doubt my final exam will consist of a grilling on the extent to I let the changes in the weather effect my behavior. No, you misunderstand. Global warming policy is not a religious subject. The Magisterium of the church does not proclaim on current specious scientific inquiries, it has no power to do so.

It deals with religion. Now, the Pope can proclaim that he thinks it is a big deal, but since he is not speaking on a relgious subject, no one need listen to him. We don’t elect the Pope to settle scientific questions for us. It’s not a matter of conscience at all. If the Pope were to tell us that string theory was a Catholci imperative, he would be off base. That’s not what the church is about. You just want support for a pet idea.

The feeble attempt to bootstrap global warming into a relgious subject is yet another weak attempt to use religion for your personal political preferences. Your insistence that the science is settled on this subject reveals you really don’t know much about the subject. Nothing could be further from the truth. When the media insists that it is immoral to allow the other side to be heard, you know something is very wrong. The whole point is they are just beginning to understand this stuff. Last week there was a new study saying that significant amounts of carbond dioxide are being released into the atmostphere above themal vents along the tectonic plates. In other words, it is all natural.

And your attempt to spin Global warming into a Catholic, religious imperative is misplaced, at best. Tonight I had a conversation with my wife and teenage step-daughter (we married when I was outside the Church while living very badly and having come into the Church, received an annulment).

My wife being almost 40 is now pregnant and she says that she never wants to be pregnant again, my step daughter then states, “I don’t see why you won’t let her get fixed.” I boldly stated (probably with ill effect), “You don’t get to do whatever you want to do, sterilization is immoral and those who do whatever they want end up in hell. The theme song to hell is this, I did whatever I wanted to do. Those in Heaven made it there because they obeyed God and did his Will. Scripture says that women are saved as through child bearing, if they remain sober, faithful to God and submit themselves to their husbands in all things. I am the head of my wife and she is to obey me on the order of God. You have but to obey or end up in hell, that is it, and that includes myself.

I must obey God, I don’t get to do whatever I want to do.” The reason I post this is because I have never heard a priest speak like this and this bold language is what I think, is lacking in the Church. Priest really do have authority over people and so do the Bishops, people will listen if they boldly proclaim the truth But who is going to obey or listen to them, if they keep avoiding the issues and giving the people sensitive (watered down) non-offensive truths. By the way, I have still never heard a single homily on contraceptives being evil, which I find very disappointing considering that so many Catholic women are using contraceptives and helping to fuel the culture of death.

But then again, it is like many other things that I never hear from the pulpit •. And General Electric, Effective 1/1/2015, they own a monopoly in the “line haul” locomotive market (large, high horsepower, intended for intercity transport), not because they produce a product which annihilated the competition; but their inherently less durable GEVO four cycle engine meets the Tier 4 standards, while the two cycle EMD 710.

You thought monopolies were great evils dispensed with by the Sherman and Robinson Patman Acts. No, some monopolies are bad, but if they are created by lord god state, they are good. God help you if you need a mid range roadswitcher. The EPA rules have ensured that neither GE or EMD re enter the four axle market they exited in the middle nineties, so you either pay a premium for a forty year old locomotive OR you get to but a “gen-set” (which uses computers to cycle on ad off small high speed truck diesels-and creates a lag which is horrible when switching-from small boutique builders.

Better hope you get a “DERA” (Diesel Emissions Reduction Act) grant, because you’ll need extra units and they are costly and unreliable, as well as almost useless. No accident GE is a political animal or that they just bult a new facility in Forth Worth Texas, away from their historic home or that Imelt was such an Obama brown noser.

1.) Even if its diesel, the smallest practical engine is about 15 litre displacement. Cummins has been supplying QSK-19 and now with Tier 4, QSX-15’s.

There’s a start up in Canada using a Cat C-9, on an SD40 truck; but its really only designed as an in-plant switcher. Keep in mind, EMD’s 710 displaces 11.6 liter per cylinder, the GE v250 GEVO 15.7 liter per cylinder. To make an engine light enough for a pickup would sacrifice the required reliability and durability required for rail service. I occasionally work with a 1958 GP9, its getting its first rebuild now. 2.) Torque is basically irrelevant-outside a few small offerings and a failed experiment on the Southern Pacific (Krauss-Maffei) just about all diesel locomotives are diesel electric. The diesel engine turns a generator or alternator which produces current that feeds traction motors on the cylinder.

Let the good Pope have had it. He may suggest: 1. The Sun may, to some extent, may be at the center of this as suggested by Copernicus 5 centuries ago. Under the Doctrine of Subsidiarity, local action is preferable to international proclamations. For example, local manufactures are better for the environment than burning filth Bunker C oil to move goods from Asia to Chicago. Conservation is good and the Pope’s use of his bully pulpit harkens back to Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts.

That is, sensible husbandry of resources is an ancient conservative idea. “Red tape”apparently invented by the Papacyhas run amok in EPA operations. Our own regs are several times larger than the Bible and consume electricity, paper, time, heat etc. That often outweighs any benefit. Hypocrisy, the first arrow shot in any attack on the Catholic Church, is rife in the global warming scams with the scammers leaving a larger carbon footprint than Big Foot. Greater scientific research into fusion in nuclear power production is needed. The New World Order crowd is THE throw away society.

They burn aborted corpses to generate energy, upset economies around the globe with degenerate and costly dictates and turn the other way when heat is generated by torching Catholic churches, often with Catholics inside. At least we all know that regardless of what the Holy Father says, the MSM will pervert every word of it. “Progressives love to promote a narrative wherein they are on the side of science, while conservatives (and religious people especially) are sticking their heads in the sand and wishing away the mountains of empirical evidence that run contrary to their views.” And yet, Rachel, you here seem to be promoting a narrative wherein conservatives are rational on this issue, whereas climate change activists are political windsocks that go wherever the wind is blowing. It’s very strange to me that you would ask for people to understand the complexity of your position, all the while glossing over the complexities of the opposing position — including, most likely, the Pope’s position. Environmental issues are all about managing risk. Some of the science on climate change is clear (e.g. We are destroying marine life and rainforests to our peril); some is unclear.

Still, if there is just a 10% that humans are seriously damaging the climate of future human beings, the stakes are so high that we should act – that would be the *conservative* thing to do. It doesn’t mean we should utterly reverse technological progress, and I don’t know any environmentalists who want to destroy industry or technology. Rather, they want to make technology *better* and more sustainable. Moreover, conservative positions on social issues would be aided by a conservative response to climate change.

We constantly say that gay marriage (e.g.) poses a risk to future generations, since – for all the history of mankind – children have been raised by at least one man and one woman. In other words, gay marriage is risky. But why should liberals listen to us when we talk about this risk, when we ignore their (plausible) claim that pollution is risky? There are many laughable excesses in the environmentalist movement, which has become a reasonably pathetic way for undisciplined people to feel self-righteous. But that doesn’t mean our way of dealing with the climate isn’t perilous. Hating Al Gore does not disprove climate science.

And since the science is now settled and has developed into an established theory, the onus is in fact on the deniers to disprove it. Why don’t you start. And try to avoid any of the old canards debunked. If you are able to prove what you claim, you will be rewarded with millions of dollars by the Koch brothers, proclaimed as a scientific genius, and your groundbreaking work ushering in a complete scientific revolution will be published in the most prestigious of peer-reviewed journals.

Let me know how your work is coming along. So you admit utter ignorance of the science, but you proudly embrace an anti-scientific position? On top of that, you admit you “couldn’t care less” about a topic that affects every living organism on this planet, and this in spite of Catholic teachings on social justice, climate, and the environment? Well, I’m fine with that, but please understand that such casual rejection of Church positions makes it impossible for you to condemn those who may disagree with Church teachings on, say, contraception or homosexuality. It’s sort of fun to have you here today M, I know people like you are out there.

It would be more fun if you were an honest person too, but I see where your filters are set. People that behave the way this way are no scientists, they are nothing more than agenda driven drones. The huge uncertainty in the current state of climate prediction models which are constantly being revised to adapt to new realities and contradictory data (as all good models should) is beyond laughable, but those who have drunk the kool-aid will never admit until maybe their funding dries up, then they become bitter. It’s clear that you don’t understand, and I’m not sure if I have any hope that you will, ever. People that talk to others the way you do must have the similar DNA as Alinski. Professional, courteous people I find are normally more more open minded. You have failed to show professionalism, courtesy, or open mindedness, so again I can’t avoid seeing hypocrisy here.

If you want to be taken seriously in your critique of the science, then, as I’ve requested before, provide your refutation. The ball in your court since the science is now an established theory. If I wanted to disprove the Big Bang theory, I’d look pretty stupid if I simply kept restating my view and attacking anyone who believed in it. It would be incumbent upon me to provide a detailed analysis of what I felt were shortcomings in the theory and then see what others do with it. In the same way, if you believe you know something that 97% of trained climatologists, every major scientific institution in the world, and the Pontifical Academy of Science have missed, all you need to do is produce a paper that undermines the growing multitude of independently verified and mutually supportive findings on the topic. All I ask is that: 1) You avoid the old canards (it’s the sun, it hasn’t warmed since 1998, carbon dioxide lags not leads, etc.) that are refuted in the links I’ve provided (I don’t want to have to keep explaining the problems with these.) 2) That you avoid trying to dodge the issue with insults (Al Gore is fat, it’s all a liberal plot, people who believe the consensus after conscientious study are “raving lunatics, etc.) Just the facts, ma’am. All I’m asking for are the facts.

I could write a list as long as my arm of prominent, credentialed scientists who are on record calling attention to the current unfounded hysteria that surrounds the global warming fan fare. In summary, the consensus is that we don’t have anywhere near a complete enough understanding of the complex interaction of CO2 or other green house gases like methane in our atmosphere, their latency, or other factors that affect the climate perhaps more like solar cycles. The only consensus is that the alarmists have adopted this as their Godless religion and are rabidly trying to enact political policies based on unproven science and which carry enormous risks. You can search as well as I, the list is pages and pages and includes Nobel prize winners, directors of famous science institutes, department chairs of prominent universities, and researchers who have dedicated their lives to studying meteorology – go Google famous global warming skeptics.

There are also many who were once on board but left and became skeptics after being sickened by the perverse hysteria they found themselves immersed in. All are better mannered and true professionals than those who resort to calling names of those who question, but their principled scientific minds allows them to see things as they are – incredibly uncertain, and not as others who are agenda driven wish them to be. You claimed to be a scientist, but no scientist I know with an ounce of integrity would offhandedly dismiss esteemed colleagues who question the certainty of your data and hypothesis. That is the act of a self absorbed, caged animal who feels threatened for their life or source of grant funding. The science is so far from being settled that is laughable to hear people like you talk the way you do. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but be transparent and honest about the limits of what is known and don’t act like your feelings are hurt when someone questions your data and conclusions.

A good scientist welcomes honest criticism because it helps prove or discredit the theory. Global heating has had to morph into climate change. A change that has happened every day since creation. That might have had a cautioning effect on a wiser man, but in Francis we have what we have. I question the choice of material for this encyclical not merely becasue the science is questionable, but because there are spiritual problems that need addressing.

Spirituality is an issue one would hope the pope would be interested in, but by choosing a subject he has no competency in he comes off as a no-nothing butinski. Frankly I’m embarrassed by this guy.

Rachel, I appreciate the sincerity in your article today, but I’m afraid that Dr. Williams and many others are on point in their criticism.

As a Chemical Engineer by education our Pope should know better than to wade into these politically infested waters. Whether we like it or not we will have to wait to see what new perspective he brings to this “settled science” (no scientist worth his salt talks like that by the way) conversation. That he would even distract himself to write an encyclical on the topic is very disheartening to me. Too late, Rachel. I already tossed and turned since I followed a New Advent link to an article in The Guardian. My first thought – how does the Pope who famously says his priests should smell like sheep rationalize taking a trip with the darlings of the elite? So he’s saying what, that priests should create the illusion of being from among the stinky flock but get on to things that really matter the first chance they get?

Then I was trying to imagine some eco friendly message being delivered by our Pope to the UN brand of elite, who use the same logic he is apparently going to embrace to promote birth control, abortion and euthanasia in the name of population control and ecology. What a fine line he is going to have to walk to dance through that one! Then I thought, ok let him take this trip that has absolutely nothing to do with our faith, our struggles in this world or with a single thing that matters to me. I’ll just refuse to take any material that it might generate, tune out any senseless sermons and retire to the monastic cell of my mind whenever the topic arises. Oh, and I won’t give any money to Peter’s Pence this year – but then I didn’t last year so there’s that. Finally I fell asleep wondering why, instead of going through the whole gospel thing, Our Lord didn’t just say – “Hey people, you must wash your hands and separate your fecal matter from your water table or you shall not enter heaven. I know you don’t get it now but someday you will.

That sheep smell is bad for a reason you just don’t get yet.” How useful would that have been? And how much closer to the real message his Vicar is apparently prepared to advance. My concern is that it’s not really about climate change at all. If the encyclical turns about to be some anodyne Bergoglian reflections on being good stewards of Creation, then Rachel Lu is correct that there’s nothing much to worry about. However, I strongly suspect that the Holy Father intends to use “climate change” as a figleaf for an attempt to redefine the Social Doctrine of the Church away from Leo XIII’s balanced approach towards something much more consonant with Latin American Socialism. Why else would he have enlisted Liberation Theologians like former Father Leonardo Boff to help him compose it?

The Holy Father has form here: as we now know, the “Synod on the Family” by design had precious little to say about the actual problems facing actual families in the actual modern world, but was (and is) a Trojan Horse for Kasperist and homosexualist “reforms” to Church teaching. You forgot the bit where the normalists impugn the characters and the motives of those expressing concern over what is, after all, a mere difference in papal style.

I have resolved to refer the normalists to of the multitudinous troubling events associated with this papacy, though it will certainly be out of date by next week. Are these all due to translation errors, or a malicious media taking him out of context, or his utterly foreign Latin American cultural context, or traditionalist meanies? Or should we use our God-given reason instead? Interesting, I did click on that link, and all I found there was the typical rad-trad griping about liturgy that has been unchanged for the last 10 Popes, ever since St. Pius X flipped the order of first confession and first communion. I actually didn’t find any of the strange things this Pope has been quoted as saying in the Mainstream Media- the stuff that I’m worried about.

I don’t care about the Pope turning down vestments woven of gold; they’ll be kept in the museum until we have a Pope whose personal style fits them. I DO care about the removal of marriage and the Holy Orders as sacraments, the endorsement of homosexuality with “Who am I to Judge?”, and the apparent widespread genocide of the poor in abortion that we’re supposed to just ignore. And so does mine, the modernist changes to our time honored traditions started with St. Pius X- ironically the very man whose name would be lent to a famous group dissenting from Vatican II. His faith in the healing power of the Blessed Sacrament would revolutionize First Communion- and also eventually lead to a reduction in the popularity of the Sacrament of Confession as people stopped confessing venal sin. There were many changes to the liturgy made slowly since Pope Pius V’s day- but after that, the changes accelerated.

As a child of the 1970s who doesn’t remember a widespread Latin Mass, but who recently saw ICEL bow to pressure and retranslate the Novus Ordo, I can sympathize somewhat with the rad trads. But of course, the change I lived through made the Mass significantly better, not worse.too bad I had to live through Puppets giving Homilies to get here.

Great article and careful stewardship of God’s creation has always been a Catholic impulse from the very early recultivation of barren wastelands by Monastic Orders to the draining of pestilent swamps and bogs in Rome. Like everything the Left embraces it is befouled with their will to power and the power they desire is over humanity by the creation of false narrative. I have never understood why they oppose reforestation, claiming desert land, increased aquaculture, agriculture along with the harvesting of the Rain Forests or mature forests when it is shown time and again that new growth always consumes more CO2 than old growth in every example.

There are even more innovative Carbon Dioxide consumption discovered by seeding of the northern and southern seas with metallic material (ships) to provide the necessary compounds for life phytoplankton which the Seas are devoid of because of the lack of metal etc Muslim and African mismanagement of arable lands in the Sahara regions have loss millions of hectares of land to the expansion of the desert which could be reversed. The Limits are always on Human output and redistribution of wealth to benefit the non-productive. I fear Francis will see this as Leftist redistribution opportunity than a long term solution to the world’s problems. Careful stewardship of God’s creation” includes care, nurturing (and proper liberty) to mankind’s wont to be energetic, inventive, and creative – in short, to do things, to make things. God’s good creation is material to all that doing and making. Material creation – proper;y understood – is subservient to man. (The exercise of “sphere-sovereignty”, to pull in a Dutch philosopher.) Mankind’s stewardship is governorship over all he (finitely) surveys, what falls into his (limiting) reach.

In which, the first thing touched is his imaging (participation) in God’s own inventive, creative life. Creation does not dictate the terms of that stewardship; it has no power over man, except, under God’s sovereignty, it blesses him – or, in those incidents it is asked to punish him. Creation does, though, communicate the nature (and laws) of its “itness” (in the Aristotelian/Thomist sense). That must be attended to and respected in man’s stewardship; it is, in truth, the first act of his governorship over creation, what has been placed in his (finite) sovereign-sphere (of acting, inventing, and creating). Thanks for forthrightness of your essay.

Well now, Pope Francis’ supposed theme of “sticking to the kerygma” didn’t last very long, did it? I have to admit I really didn’t expect that it would. So, his first encyclical will be on the biggest pet issue of the progressive political left.

I expect this encyclical to be more about economics, with the basic theme being that the rich nations of the West are taking more than their fair share of the world’s resources while emperiling the planet and subjecting poor nations to the downside of “climate change.” Shame on the rich Western nations! Pope Benedict was also an environmentalist, and very concerned about the issue of climate change, but he was smart enough not to wade into this highly politicized issue with an encyclical, especially when the “science” is definitely not settled. Whenever I run across a piece commenting on something the Pope is alleged to have said, I simply pass over it. Unfortunately, Francis I has become irrelevant to me and I await the next conclave. The Holy Spirit was on vacation for this past one. I refuse to allow myself to be perturbed any further by this man’s musings. A cousin of mine offered to open her house to me near Philadelphia for the Pope’s visit there this Fall.

I politely thanked her and told her that I was planning on watering the lawn that day. “Climate Change.” Yes, the climate changes, and thank goodness, otherwise Ohio (where I now reside) would be under 600 feet of ice, as it was 40,000 years ago.

“People are responsible for the climate changing.” Highly debatable. According to some studies, all of human activity has had less effect on climate than three volcanic eruptions. “People can stop climate change.” Supremely arrogant and absurd. “The Pope’s opinion about all of this is part of the Magisterium.” His opinion matters about as much as mine, which is not much at all. Let’s seeBehold the Lord God Yahweh didst look down upon his children upon the earth, and lo, thanks to man-made global warming, the seas, yea, they had risen, drowning out the teeming lowlands, the clouds had not dispensed their rain, and verily, the wretched of the earth, they did wander uprooted from their homes, perishing of hunger and thirst, first by their millions and then by their billions.

And lo, the Blessed Holy Father, Pope of the One True Church didst die and ascend to the glories of God. “Did thou doest well, my Son?” asked Lord God Sabaoth. “Yes, my Father,” saith the Pope, “I did chide the people for their divorces and for the evil of birth control.” “Well done, my faithful one,” saith the Father.

“Thou didst mind to the truly dreadful things that afflicted the sons of men. Come ye into my kingdom.” And in the midst of this conversation, another million people starved and died on the earth. And this is what I’m getting. I don’t care what you guys believe in about Climate Change and I don’t think that you will go to Hell for not liking what Pope Francis has to say on the topics. However, it is hypocritical for you to dismiss the views of the Pope on social justice teachings and scream about the fact that some Catholics dismiss the Church’s teachings on birth control or gay marriage.

I’ve always been told that you cannot pick and choose the parts of Catholicism that you like by conservative Catholics and it seems that the same applies here. An encyclical is the highest level of papal teaching which would put this on the same level as Humane Vitae, wouldn’t it? Who said I dismissed anything?

You’re throwing out strawmen, now. And you have it absolutely backwards. Heterodox Catholics like you cannot have it both ways. The Heterodox have been fighting to get the Church to change it prohibitions on contraception since 1960; the prohibitions against abortion since 1972, and heterodox Catholics have been lobbying the Church to relax its teachings on adultery and homosexuality since at least the late 1980s.

I’m not for changing anything. And I have nothing against an encyclical on stewardship.

However, it was the Vatican that announced that Pope Francis intended to publish an encyclical concerning “human-ecology” and Climate Change next autumn, not me. I’m just trying to figure out how a subject like Climate Change made it into the subject. He might has well included String Theory. CO2 is measured in parts per million.

There is not enough biomass we can burn to raise CO2 levels to the point where it would effect our weather patterns. Currently we are at 398ppm. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution it was 325ppm. At what levels should we reduce our CO2 levels to? BTW, at 325ppm crop yields fall to a point where starvation would become the norm at our current population levels.

There are negative feedbacks to reducing CO2 levels. Almost all of them are bad.

I cannot imagine that the Pope wants to drink from the polluted rivers of the Climate Change issue. It would certainly detract from the moral issues of stewardship.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.'

- 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path.

To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce.

Where does that lead us eventually?' Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.' By: - November 19, 2015 6:10 PM with Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary,, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet’world premiere in Paris.

# From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr.

Patrick Moore AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris. The scientists appeared.

The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.” Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said. Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.

— is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.” Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind. “People get excited over this.

Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated. “We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales!

The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted. “When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said.

( Also See: ) “The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.” “The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science.

To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote. “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.

Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science. “John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added. Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter. Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’” Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.” “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work.

We are being led down a false path. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce.

Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked. “Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added. Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.” “If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said. “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared. Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said. Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr.

Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared. “We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.

“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added. “Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said. Checkpoint Vpn Secure Client Windows 7 64 Bit Download on this page. Let’s get the language straight here since words have meaning.

There is no such entity as radical Islam there is only ISlam. Again you are wrong and trying to get the USA to kill the USA is a a military ploy used all over the world as we have seen with the current administration messing around killing off leaders in Islam and Ukraine as well in order to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Did not work in Egypt for the Egyptians are smart peoples who will not tolerate ISlam destroying Egypt and Egyptian history. Do know the history of Communism in the US Civil War? Here let me get you stated I have two names of German Communists who gladly killed USA citizens: Franz Sigel and “Carl Christian Schurz (German: [ˈkaʁl ˈʃʊʁts]; March 2, 1829 – May 14, 1906) was a German revolutionary, American statesman and reformer, U.S. Minister to Spain, Union Army General in the American Civil War, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of the Interior.

He was also an accomplished journalist, newspaper editor and orator, who in 1869 became the first German-born American elected to the United States Senate.[1]” See how Communists embed themselves also look up old Franz Sigel where the pattern is obvious for those who understand patterns. 🙂 There were more 1848ers than these two but the importance in learning the history and identifying the patterns. “Franz Sigel (November 18, 1824 – August 21, 1902) was a German military officer, revolutionist and immigrant to the United States who was a teacher, newspaperman, politician, and served as a Union major general in the American Civil War. His ability to recruit German-speaking immigrants to the Union armies garnered the approval of President Abraham Lincoln.” Identifying the pattern in the basics ‘101’. Ever wondered why US history classes all but skip studying the US Civil War in any sort of detail? Studying details Would out how many foreigners were recruited when some found it difficult to get USA citizens to kill USA citizens.

23.4% of the Union army were immigrants. As a result of the use of the Hessian (Germans) the hold outs, the Royalists and Catholics, joined the American Revolution. Germans have been killing USA citizens since day one of the beginning of the USA.

Studying the US Civil war will help you with better understanding why some are trying soooooo very hard to divide the USA and in fact the US Civil is the very most important part of US history. Best to hit the books becos PATTERNS REPEAT THEMSELVES when one is ignorant of history. Btw nice little German Communist thurr eh?

There are more 1848ers and one brutal sadistic Hungarian Communist to learn about too you know just like George Soros! Did you learn anything at all about those who promote civil wars within nations? Did you learn why the use of the IS IL rather than IS IS is significant and outs those who use IS IL rather than IS IS?

One need only to look up and read the difference between IS IL and IS IS and be weary and suspect of those who use the IS IL rather than IS IS. Hope you have also learned there is no such entity as radical ISlam only Islam where again usage of language is very important. Language usage outs how one thinks and or is trained to think. For instance we learned the importance of language from George Orwell in 1984 and Animal Farm.

My solution son is get to hitting the books and learn patterns and if one enjoys being enslaved by Islam then so be it just never even expect a USA citizen to ever GIVE IN! Again the reasoning for the mass immigration of immigrants where immigrants replaced slavery in the USA. CB,Global Warming which had to be changed to the euphemistically always correct Climate Change is all about government power over our lives and the ability of the government to identify an evil and force people to pay more to fight the evil. It has never been about facts and truth. When they added CO2 as an evil they screwed themselves, because CO2 is an important and necessary substance. Plants thrive.

As to the Fossil fuel silliness, just think of all the oil, gas and coal in the world, and more keeps getting discovered. There were never that many dinosaurs.

They would have been needed to be piled up for thousands of feet on top of one another to get even close to the amount of abiotic fuels there actually are. Use your imagination. That was actually a fraud brought into existence by scientists hired by John D. Rockefeller in 1898 to create the lie that oil was scarce and therefore must be very valuable. It is all a massive fraud.

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.” Fred Hoyle, 1982 •. You can post all of the self-serving made-up BS you want to. I simply pointed out the FACT that they manipulate the data – and admit it. “”Is it likely multiple research institutions on multiple continents are all coordinating with one another to “jimmy the data” in the same direction?”” Yes.

They’re all leftists, and all leftists lie – and pass around the same lies. “””The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014 was the warmest since 1891.””” Repeating the lie doesn’t make it true. It’s still madeup BS. There hasn’t been any significant warming in almost two decades. And prior to 1900 was the temperatures higher and lower just like the graph, before the industrial age and the AGW nonsense?

Yep because that is what the earth does, also noting the scale of your graph is not even a degree and you may also want to understand where they are taking those measurements most of them are done on south facing walls or in parking lots with scorching hot pavement or near hot air exhaust of AC’d buildings. This has been admitted, shown and proven that is how they do it. So is it warming? Or are you just grabbing at straws? Notice how there is NEVER a graph or chart shown before the industrial age? Why, because it has ACTUALLY been hotter with LESS CO2 and vice versa, so while the ‘97% consensus’ might buy your nonsense, people who can do their homework do not and your biggest issue is not that ‘its all big oil’ but that fact is people are seeing through the fear for what it is. “it has ACTUALLY been hotter with LESS CO2 and vice versa” Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when it got cold enough for polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

If you were telling the truth, isn’t this something you should be able to do? “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then.

But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.” •. Part of the problem may be the dating “You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archeological site is (claimed to be) 20,000 years old. We learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known (speculations and imaginative guesses); in fact, it is about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the last (earliest) historical date of any any real certainty has been established.” –Willard Libby, Nobel Laureate for development of radiocarbon dating •. Oh, I’d surely bet MY life that this so called ‘data’ is accurate and meaningful. Too many of these bogus climate Chicken Little leftists have been caught red-handed ‘fudging’ (manipulating) the ‘data’ to imply warming And NOAA figures prominently in the Lair of Global Warming Liars.

Example: it was revealed in August that NOAA has been collecting temperature data from numerous U.S. Airport weather stations, BUT, to support the totally bogus global warming scam, they have MANUALLY bumping UP THE TEMPERATE READINGS from the weather stations to show a higher temperature!!! Yep – I’d trust NOAA as far as I could drool. Funny how the adjustments all go one way – everything before 1950 is made cooler, everything after 1950 is made hotter. Did thermometers suddenly change in 1950? Does no one notice that the changes are only in one direction, that the adjustments are always to make the past cooler and the present hotter?

Think about this – I might accept that old data would require some sort of adjustment. Perhaps there was something wrong with the old instrumentation.

But they are adjusting data they just collected. This says to me that they still haven’t quite figured out how to create a global temperature average. Therefore everything they have been saying about global temperatures for the last 20 years is crap – they didn’t know what they were doing, probably still don’t, if the data keeps requiring these massive adjustments. My problem here is that Climate Depot is not a scientific site but a political clearing house run by an ex political aide to the Republican party for a right leaning libertarian think tank called CFact. Not what you would call an honest broker on this issue. So far so bad. Add to that the fact that Richard Lindzen is not a research active scientist but is employed by a (big surprise coming here) right leaning libertarian think tank.

The Cato Institute: So far so terrible. Add to that, the Cato Institute was formed with financial assistance from everyone’s favorite avuncular climate villains.

The Koch Bros: None of the above is a ringing endorsement for the honesty of this article, never mind though, if past behavior is anything to go by you be seeing a lot of this from the propaganda houses in the few weeks ahead running up to the Paris climate summit. Mobius Loop: I’m obviously missing something here.

If you don’t like a person or don’t like an organization because its politics are opposite or different from yours, are you saying that nothing they say or write can be true? Do I have this correct? Does this mean that any organization which you don’t like is automatically not capable of providing valuable or accurate information? Does this mean that the highly political body and very expensive fully taxpayer funded UN and its political offspring the IPCC, have a higher level of honour or truth because they use massive amounts of your tax money while those other groups or organizations in comparison, often use little or none? Do you examine any of the collected data? Have you bothered to check into how well the scientific method has been used in justifying their claims, predictions, or projections (the term now used by the IPCC)? Are you OK with all the claims being made based on mathematical models which have failed (nearly 100% of the time)?

Just wondering how you arrive at your conclusions and philosophies. I’ve been studying weather and climate for a long time and can’t quite seem to follow your reasoning or arrive at the same conclusions. I agree that you reported what they said, but what they said is distorted, compared to other scientific reports. And I know that some of their funding comes from private sources as compared to government grants issued to finding manmade causes. As for the editing, that could be posed to both sides. Nevertheless, what evidence is most accurate and clear, remains to be seen.

As of yet the science is not “settled” but the alarmists are appearing to be the ones cooking the books. Therefore to call someone a “denier” really should be applied to the alarmists who have made up their minds and refuse to look at the new evidence. Don’t be so quick to condemn. And I’ve seen other data that portends to show that temperatures have actually fallen over the last fifteen years or so. Climate changes, weather changes, temps go up, temps go down.

We have almost nothing to do about it, and there’s almost nothing we can do to change it. And it isn’t even known whether we SHOULD change it. What if there are more benefits to warming a few degrees than to cooling a few degrees? We don’t know. Any talk about climate change and what we will do about it displays the ultimate in human arrogance. “One volcano can dump more crap into the atmosphere in an afternoon than humans have in recorded history.” That’s transparently false idiocy that could have been identified by a few seconds of google time.

If you’re going to make it so blindingly obvious you don’t care about what’s true, why bother posting anything at all? Who’s going to take you seriously? “all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities” volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php •. Back to you SweetHeart: You GW Sheeple often refer to that 97% number that was concocted years ago that was a result of a U of Ill survey to 10,000 professionals about AGW, where only just a couple of 1,000s even responded, and of the very few, less than 100 of 10,000 responded to the questions only 86 THOUGHT it was a problem, hence your 97%. And in the web site you refer to above, most are just opinions of a few that thought it was even worth while to respond. One example of your source, the American Meteorological Society sent out over 7,000 surveys and so few responded that they reported “Theextenttowhichthe findingsreportedhererepresentthe viewsofallAMSMembers isthereforeunknown.” So it is nice that you give references to YOUR opinion, but sighting it as 97% scientist agree is not accurate.

It is just 97% of the PEOPLE (not necessarily scientist of proper training) you are of a similar OPINION as you. (Liars use numbers, and numbers will lie.) •.

First, if you look at the 97% claim, those making the claim did a considerable amount of cherry-picking regarding who they declared “climate scientists”. The primary criteria were apparently whether they could get away with denying that skeptic was a climate scientist and whether they could claim a AGCC proponent was, despite being in a different field. In other words, the 97% is a meme based upon lies.

Second, climate is not static, and, as we do not understand the drivers of climate (weather forecasts are pretty darn miserable, you know), and the models that incorporate the AGW/AGCC carbon dioxide hypothesis have all proven egregiously wrong, assertions about carbon-dioxide based changes are exceedingly poorly founded. Third, if you read the actual U.N. Climate reports, their content often not only does not support the assertions in the various executive summaries, the content often refutes those assertions. Read the actual reports in their entirety, rather than the summaries, and you will, if you have an open mind, become a skeptic. Yeah, uh-huh Wikipedia is now “authoritative” In your dreams, perhaps, but not in the reality. No, I am not convinced that most scientists do not support AGW.

That is a false inference on your part. But, there is not a consensus. There are thousands of scientists who do not think the debate is over, the science settled. Those thousands include respected climate scientists, Nobel Laureates, etc., who the AGW crowd simply chooses to ignore as “deniers” even when they simply say that the science is not settled. The fact is the science is not settled. The bodies of the U.N. Reports make this rather clear, while the summaries say otherwise.

Further, here’s an item where quite reputable scientist assert that the science is not settled. OK, you don’t like WIkipedia so lets go straight to source material So the WIkipedia bugbear is out of the way, and we are dealing with the surveys themselves or articles that describe them. The last of the links above is particularly interesting, as it make a statement that of 10,883 peer reviewed climate related papers submitted in 2013 only 2 (that is TWO out of TEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED & EIGHTY THREE) reject the reality of AGW. I’ve made a considerable effort to underpin my point, if you still feel strongly that I am in error then please provide the counter evidence to build a case rather than presenting more threadbare cliches from the dwindling book of denial memes. Name one credible scientific institution anywhere that denies man made climate change. A list of (real) worldwide science agencies: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” Or, we could look at IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM Or, Or Or Or Or, The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists Or, who says: If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW.

Instead, to find even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. (Try this yourself with a random selection of 300 peer-reviewed articles here.) The true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%.

Or for your amusement a study just published 9-24-2015. Purdue study: Climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. OK, so you are the variety of idiot as Mobius.

I said the science is not settled, and it is NOT settled. That does not mean man-made climate changed does not exist. It means denying that we still do not know a great deal about climate, and that much of the debate from the AGW/ACC side is based upon flawed hypotheses.

That further means that drastic actions based upon those hypotheses are premature, and may in fact create more problems than they solve. The climate changes constantly, as it always has and always will. Where in that is a denial of climate change? Where in that is a denial that climate change as we are currently experiencing it may be in part driven by human activity?

But also, where in the AGW/ACC dogma is recognition of the fact that change will occur no matter what? Now f*** off and grow a brain. It was a simple question, name one credible scientific institution anywhere in the world that disagrees with man made climate change. I even gave you a list. Yes, climate has changed in the past. If you’d stuck around for eighth grade earth science, you would have learned about the Milankovitch cycles, that seem to have driven the last couple of dozen glaciations and interglacial periods in the current ice age. It turns out we do know something about our global climate.

Approx half a million years of steady rise and fall cycling up and down approx 100 ppm every 100,000 years, like the steady rhythm of a heartbeat or breath and then suddenly in 50 years we have knocked the levels off by double that bandwidth. If this were a patient doctors would be scrambling to do something. This graph from NASA shows with chilling clarity what we have done to CO2 levels Personally I kind of like NASA, they seem to be pretty good at the whole science thing. They are saying that climate change and warming are still very much happening •. What I can say is that when the report came out, I went through it taking a random sample of 10 abstracts, read them and compared them against the ratings given by the researchers. All appeared appropriate and in some cases I felt the reviewers were on the cautious side. The paper offered all scientists a right to reply and while I don’t doubt there are a few that may feel their word was incorrectly rated, I’ve come across nothing that shows widespread rejection of the work by actual scientists.

Note that is actual scientists and not propaganda sites like this one or WuWT. You clearly believe that you have access to information demonstrating I am wrong. Feel free to present a list of the ‘many’ scientists your refer to. I utterly reject your last sentence on the basis that I had a bath this month. In the honorable memory of Michael Crichton, may he RIP. “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” “There is no such thing as consensus science.

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” [Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.] “ Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” From Michael Crichton’s speech, “Alien’s Cause Global Warming.” Full speech can be found all over the net. How many total ‘scientists’ were there? If there is 100 scientists and 97 of them agree, does that mean the entire world is going to die tomorrow if we don’t cough up an air tax to the broke govts who already wasted all our money? Or do you work for Goldman Sachs who is going to be bringing in a $10 000 000 000 000/year CARBON EXCHANGE? So you may say you don’t like banks and capitalism and yet is you who work for them (for free no less) promoting this nonsense over fractions of a degree for Goldman Sachs!

Sorry CB NASA is reporting “Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum” Here is the link FYI, “drinking the Kool-Aid” is a reference to a socialist cult called the People’s Temple where 918 followers committed mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. It is a perfect metaphore for the religion of climate change. You have a small number of global socialist elite Kool-Aid mixers plotting a bogus climate crisis to justify a power grab that would give them power over the worlds productive resources and distribution of wealth.

These political elites give money to a small group of people who don’t mind politicizing science so long as the grant money gravy train keeps flowing. These scientists at the Climate Research Unit housed at the University of East Anglia provide the primary data that the rest of the scientific comunity studies. During Climategate, these corrupt scientists were caught red handed distorting the primary data with 2,000 documents including emails and footnotes in computer code admitting to using “tricks” to hide and distort the data. These “scientists” were publicly insisting that the past decade was the warmest ever while internally dismayed that the planet was cooling. Next comes real scientists doing secondary research based on distorted primary data looking to get published and advance their career with alarming predictions. Then comes every journalist in the “If it bleeds it leads media” and every Hollywood movie producer looking for an apocolyptic storyline and every anti-business, leftist government union teacher indoctrinating children to the point of anxiety. Before long you have millions of Kool-Aid drinkers willing to sacrifice economic security and prosperity at the alter of Mother Earth.

Well, you need to do a bit more research. First, Antarctica is losing Ice primarily because of volcanic magma under the ice, but hat said, Antarctica gained record ice for the past 2 years, I believe, you do the research, I already know what’s going on.

The Arctic Ice has always ebbed and flowed. Greenland once supported the growing of grapes.

Climate has changed for 4.5 billion years, it will always change as long as we have an active sun, and as with 99.99999% of that changing climate, man isn’t a factor. I’m laughing more often these days as more and more scientists are stepping forward and calling B.S.!

I delight that all you loons will have to live with your gullible peers while we with level heads and thinking minds laugh at how really stupid you all have been. JIM JONES & OVAMIT KINDThis Climate Change BS Is Just One MORE Way for THE “ELITISTS” TO FURTHER DIVIDE & TRANSFER THE WEALTH!! THE US REPRESENTS Less than or just slightly 5% of the PEOPLE on the PLANET! SOCHINA, INDIA & AFRICA Are where MOST of the WORLDS POLLUTION REALLY EXISTS!TOO Many PEOPLE, TOO MUCH GARBAGE, & TOO MANY POLLUTANTS!!PERIOD!US Is NOT & CANNOT POSITIVELY AFFECT THE “CLIMATE CHANGE!”.BUT THE ELITISTS HAVE MADE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF ALL THE BS!! PROVENJUST LEFTISTS IDIOTS Don’t WANT the TRUTH, Nor would they RECOGNIZE it IF they SAW OR HEARD IT.WHY??

TOO LACKING IN BASICCOMMON SENSE!! Talk about the MONEY that HAS BEEN MADE ON ALL THIS BS!! IT’S also been MOST OF THE DEMONRATS WHO’VE “MADE” MOST OF THOSE “PROFITS TOO!”. “Technically the globe has been on a steady warming trend since the ice age, so what rate is normal?” It’s not merely about the rate of warming but the extent. What is normal for the human species is a planet that has polar ice sheets. If it’s so likely polar ice sheets will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, why isn’t there a single example of them doing so in Earth’s history? “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.” earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php •.

Yes, and if all the air was replaced by vacuum, we would all be dead! And if Shoemaker-Levy discover another comet which impacts the earth, we will all be dead. The climate on earth always changes, it always has. It is called weather, and it is driven by the Sunalways was, and always will be. At least till the Sun runs out of Hydrogenthen we all die! Want to worry about something real, worry about idiots running your Government who actually believe that bringing 10s of thousands of Muslims into America is a great idea!

Are you even listening? Do you know anything at all about The Scientific Method?

This is social media’s fault. It has given credibility to the morons like CB, who probably couldn’t pass basic algebra and Chemistry 101, as every other Liberal. I took a year of Meteorology in High School, on top of biology, chem, marine biology, and this whole Global Warming “presentation” has always rubbed me the wrong way because it conflicts with the Scientific Method and analysis we were taught. The ROLE of science is to constantly challenge and try to disprove current theory, and to suppress that (as the global warming crowd wishes to do) is actually ANTI SCIENTIFIC •.

Temperatures go up and down. Next year might be the coldest since 1853 so what? It is called weather!

All you envirofreaks have your knickers in a wad over carbon emissions and claim to be “green” implying you love plants. Plants-such as trees in the rain forest that the greenie weenies are always crying about- thrive on carbon dioxide.

It is what they breath. You folks are advocating suffocating plants by removing their most essential element from the atmosphere. It is the same as someone advocating removing all the oxygen from the atmosphere. If that happened we all would die.Show your love for a tree burn a lump of coal! So, what caused the warming in 1891?

If it was warmer in 1891 than it was in 2014 Well??? It was crazy warm in the 1930’s, then it got crazy cold during the 1970’s. Prompting many scientists to fear a mini ice age. Now, it is warm again. And what about 900 to 1200 AD?

FAR warmer than it is now, and then near the end of 1300 AD, the mini Ice Age. Sounds like a cycle to me. It gets warm It gets cold Then it gets warm again.

With or without mankind. Sorry, but the evidence against man made global warming is just too compelling to ignore.

Starting with my first sentence. I assume you are a proponent of an old earth, say, billions of years? Your sampling of temperatures only goes back about 130 years or so. The sample size is way too small to make ANY claim about climate change. Insofar as CO2 is concerned, it is.04% of the atmosphere! I’ll type that again:.04% The only thing in this case that threatens my well-being is your idiotic assertions that will levy taxes on my income, you dolt.

It is a lie, you may or may not know it’s a lie, but it’s a lie nevertheless. Incidentally, climate changes all of the time, it’s called seasons.

Imagine that! So when they were about to sign that global warming treaty and Obama even went over and hackers leaked all them emails from all them scientist the day before that showed even they were lying, which put a stop to the treaty. All left and went home red faced! Till they decided to change it to climate change!!! History of this planet shows and proves that it is constantly changing.

Ice ages, warm times etc, it is nothing new or abnormal, just part of the earth cycle that is completely normal. Just that in today’s time there are some that want to exploit others dumb enough to follow them and give them the money! “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012) American Meteorological Society “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.

I suggest you readOh never mind. Just keep quoting the same folks who have been fudging the data for decades to get a pre-determiend outcome. The IPCC was formed for “climate change.” If it told the truth there would no reason for its existence. Ergo, its employees would be without jobs and those lovely government grants that keep these folks wealthy and living in a grand style.

If the planet were indeed warming over the past two decades, why does not the supporters of it publish the data It uses tons of CO2 to try to quiet those who hold solid, peer-reviewed scientific papers holing the opposite view. Satellite reporting, actually recording temperatures accurately, indicates there has been no climate warming in 19 years. Why would you believe data “modeling,” making up temps, to reach a pre-determined outcome, over actual temperature readings?

Seems like sloppy reasoning to me. Sent to an Australian newspaper. (I am an Australian geologist/educator). These are facts which anyone may verify.

“To rehearse some geology: Back in the Pleistocene, an era affectionately termed by some, “the plasticine”, because events are so difficult to date — just before human fossils — which are notoriously rare at the best of times — just before we arrived –- we may surmise, based on a shoestring, Lake Eyre and places like it, were temperate, wet, even fresh. Giant marsupials, ferns,etc. At some stage. At some other stage, in the Pleistocene, or perhaps in the ‘Recent’, after the Pleistocene – who knows?

–freely blowing, unsecured sand formed large tracts of sand dunes in Australia. Witness, the Simpson Desert. Sand dune formation implies dryer conditions than exist today, to account for bulk free moving sand. In another dry part of the world, and certainly in Human/Recent times, large tracts of North Africa suddenly changed from grasslands to desert. In a colder part of the world, in this ‘Recent’ (Holocene is the technical term), Greenland was so-named for being green, not white, and wave formed beach ‘ridges’ were laid down at the north-facing mouth of Independence Fjiord.

Wave formed beach ridges demand waves, and the waves came from the Arctic Sea. By implication, ice-free, for considerable time. All these events – there are countless similar events recorded in the strata – all these events — you need not be advised –pre-dated coal mines. You mean the massive fraud and power grab by the bankers behind the global warming scam threatening to implement an Orwellian world government and drastically reduce world population? Yesthe skeptics are very concerned about this. Only extremely unintelligent people believe in significant man-made global warming when all the evidence is against it and a bunch of politicians are screaming for legislation to save 1 degree of beneficial warming over the next 100 years while gaining massive economic control over us and earning billions from taxation and emissions trading derivative schemes I mean you’d have to be completely moronic to believe in significant anthropogenic Global Warming.

Actually that’s not true at all. Scientifically credibility is a function of successful publication, review, and acceptance of research in the relevant peer reviewed scientific journals. The fossil fuel industry’s scientists have not published a significant amount of convincing research in the peer reviewed scientific literature to convince their fellow scientists that their climate science denying arguments are true. The purpose of publishing your research in peer reviewed journals is so that other scientists (who understand the work) can check it, verify the methodology and claims, and agree with the findings or criticize what they don’t agree with. If the fossil fuel hired guns did actually so publish they might have the same credibility as the scientists who actually do.

If you want evidence for this fact you can get it at this Youtube link: posted by an impartial and experienced science journalist who actually tracks the scientific work on climate science in peer reviewed journals. Think the proof for global warming depends on computer models? Check out his video on the actual research evidence in real science journals for global warming (which Time magazine and the rest of the lay press ignore). Do you think there was a scientific consensus that global cooling was leading to an impending ice in the 1960s as reported in the popular press? A survey of the actual scientific literature at that time says otherwise. Check out potholer54’s videos and learn how to really judge what is and what is not scientific evidence and scientific credibility.

If you really don’t care just keep spouting off. Most climate science deniers don’t really care. Take blood letting for instance.

It’s blatantly obvious that poisoned blood causes sickness. All the published science concurs. Get rid of bad blood, cure the patient.

Get with it, get with the peer review and the science. Let more blood! Ahh, strike me silly. In whose ‘pay’ was Copernicus, when he risked all by saying the planets might not all revolve about Earth? Fossil fuel industry scientists? You mean, people who study geology texts? And write them?

Krauskopf, K.B. 1967, INTRODUCTION TO GEOCHEMISTRY,McGraw-Hill/Kogakusha, Tokyo.

P.617f, touches on the carbon topic, as of safety and certainty. Let the record speak.

“The carbon of sedimentary rocks was nearly all derived from CO2 that once existed in the atmosphere: the carbon of organic materials was fixed in organic compounds by photosynthesis and the carbon of precipitated carbonates represents atmospheric CO2 added to seawater either directly by solution or indirectly by the respiration and decay of organisms. If we estimate the total amount of carbon buried in sedimentary rocks, therefore, we should get a figure indicating how much CO2 has existed in the air at one time or another.

Rubey’s calculations (Rubey,1951,GEOL.SOC.AMERICA BULL.,vol.62, pp.1111-1147) indicate that the amount of buried carbon exceeds that in the present atmosphere, oceans, and organisms by a factor of about 600 times (see Rubey, p.1124). Even if some of the analyses and estimates of volumes on which the calculations rest are greatly in error, the figure would still be startlingly large. Beyond any reasonable doubt. The amount of carbon now in the air is only a tiny fraction of the amount that has existed at some time in the geologic past. This result can be interpreted in several ways.

One extreme possibility is that the atmosphere at some early period was very dense,consisting chiefly of CO2 at a partial pressure of about 12 atmospheres, and that the activity of plants plus the deposition of carbonate sediments has gradually reduced the amount to its present low value, 0.0003 atmospheres [recent measurements place this figure at 0.0004]. This is an unlikely hypothesis, for it would mean that we are living at the very end of the history of life on our planet.

Some CO2 is returned to the air by respiration, rock weathering, and organic decay, but the amount is too small to make up for the carbon that is being steadily removed as precipitated carbonates and organic matter buried with sediments. A rough calculation of the carbon balance indicates that CO2 in air will fall to a level too low to support plant life within a few centuries, unless some other source of the gas is available. Since the geologic record gives indisputable evidence for the continuous existence of multicellular organisms for at least 600 million years, and of unicellular life for at least 2 billion years [since extended to 4], the CO2 content of air cannot have dropped far below its present figure for a long time. And it is scarcely believable that the present 0.0003 atmospheres [more precisely,0.0004] has been reached only now after 4 billion years of steady depletion.

An obvious additional source of carbon dioxide is volcanic activity...” Please note, the author of the ‘Bible’ of geochemistry did not have the advantage of more recent discoveries re. Comets and ice bodies of Space. Thus he did not mention comets alongside volcanoes as potential re-supply agents. Chug-a-lug, sister. Keep drinking that kool-aid and be sure to believe everything the doom-sayers tell you.

You do realize you are believing in computer generated predictions, right? They are only as reliable as the information entered into them and you still have to deal with the fact that nature is not predictable. It does seem to run in cycles and it was only a few years ago when we were told we were headed for the next ice age (also a computer generated prediction). Al Gore had to switch really fast when that one didn’t work out. Oh, and remember the ozone layer. It was supposed to be gone by now and we were all supposed to burn up or something from the sun’s rays.

I’m waiting for Chicken Little’s next announcement. Probably is, but it wouldn’t matter anyway since it’s just a computer projection. There is no concrete evidence and even if there was, we are such a minute component of the entire earth’s ecological system that to believe that one country or five or even 10 could destroy the planet (or stop its destruction) is absurd. And those that spout this BS, say they will be proven right in 75 to 200 years when none of us will be here to say “See, I told you so” to those believers out there. I believe we can make the air cleaner in our local area but the whole planet, no. Literally the first things I said ~25 years ago when human GW erupted in the press was 1 – there is no century’s worth of data that is global 2 – there is no historical data of sufficient accuracy to make any such claim.

It’s so basic: a sufficient number of samples of sufficient accuracy. Neither one is even remotely close to being satisfied.

Those things are just as true today as they were back then. There is no scientific basis for claiming human activity is heating the planet. Which I guess is why it’s now ‘climate change’ – so vague it can be invoked to support anything. Perhaps we could get ALL the scientists to jump to their doom actually what about the doctors too, what a bunch of charlatans. While we’re at it bloody engineers (structural, electrical, mechanical – need to make sure we get the disreputable whole bunch).. In fact lets chuck in everyone who ever spent their life studying and practicing a discipline..

Then a certain restricted section of the population can live a short but happily unchallenged existence. Until a reality they can neither understand nor cope with rushes up and bites them on the. Astronauts now there’s another bunch of feckless losers. The difference is that there’s a theory, then a hypothesis, then research, testing and honest outcomes. To state emphatically with scientific F-Ing PROOF that the warming or cooling of the earth WILL cause chaos that can only be rectified by taking a piece of my income, is like stating that there is no God. I have a book that says its so.

You say my book is false. But your data is flawed, created by man, using a computer graph that predicts the weather, when all along it was George Bush and his mighty weather machine.

Your belief vs mine. Why not donate all your money instead of creating BS to steal mine earned income for your selfish one sided global research. What a chicks hit little. Here’s the thing, I’m just not clear about your book and it’s accuracy e.g. What were Jesus’s last words before dying?

You would thinks something like that would be pretty important and therefore clearly recorded. On AGW it is not an issue of belief, but of cold, clear research and evidence. Ever major scientific institution on Earth who has looked at the case for AGW agrees that it is a reality and serious enough to require action. World leaders from all over the planet have listened to scientific advice and are gathered in Paris to discuss the next steps. The momentum and the evidence is against you.

Like someone arguing that smoking is good for children the onus is now on you to provide the case against. You may argue that you don’t need to, and that is your prerogative, but you will find that events have passed you by and you won’t have a choice. Good question, directed to CB but I’m sure she won’t mind if I throw some thoughts in. A root and branch drive to energy efficiency that runs through every aspect of our life. A Manhattan type project to develop new technologies and diversify energy portfolios. A global survey of potential energy e.g. Its an unusual case but Norway is capable of providing 100% of its energy from hydro electric sources.

Agree a series of international carbon taxes that start very low but ramp up a little each year allowing people, industries and countries to migrate away from these dying technologies. Use the funds raised to drive research and to fund energy efficiency measures for the most vulnerable.

Reprogram the World Bank and WTO so that AGW is at the top of their agenda, with the WTO in particular charged with policing international behavior as they currently do for trade, equipping them to levy penalties against those who dodge carbon limit for competitive advantage. I have a question. What exactly have you done personally to stop global warming? In your personal life? I’m curious as to what kind of lifestyle we should all be living to stop global warming. If it all boils down to a “carbon tax” being monitored and controlled by politicians, count me out.

Politicians want money. They will offer any excuse to get to our money. The only way I can envision stemming the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is to cut the Earth’s population at least in half. Are you volunteering?

Neither am I. There are two parts to the response, and what they are saying. Who is important because it goes to the heart of credibility. If you follow this issue and accept the science it rapidly becomes clear that there is a campaign of denial orchestrated by a series of anonymously funded right leaning libertarian think tanks that all cross reference and back each other up in rejection of mainstream climate science. So here we have an article written by an ex political aide to the Republican party running an outreach website for CFact, an anonymously funded right leaning libertarian think tank. Richard Lindzen, a scientist with strong past research credentials but has not been research active for some years.

He is however employed by the Cato Institute, (I’ll bet you didn’t see this coming) a right leaning libertarian think tank.. Set up using funding from and heavily influenced by fossil fuelled billionaires the Koch Bros. William Happer is research active and again has strong science credentials but has also been the chairman of the board of the Marshall Institute (you’ve guessed it). A right leaning libertarian think tank, that has received substantial funding from Exxon Mobile. Patrick Moore, may have been a founding member of Greenpeace but has spent the last 30 years working in Environmental PR for industry. He is also associated with a number of organizations e.g.

The CO2 Coalitions which provides a wonderful glimpse into the wider structure of this network of denial: Check out some of the members: the board of directors includes: Roger Cohen, PhD — former Manager Strategic Planning ExxonMobil Research and Engineering. Will Happer, PhD Patrick Moore, PhD William O’Keefe — CEO George C.

Marshall Institute; former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer American Petroleum Institute. Leighton Steward — former Chairman, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company While the Advisorary Committee includes Richard Lindzen. With very very few exceptions every time a counter argument to AGW is put forward it contains little actual research and is usually delivered by a hand that is one or two handshakes away from a representatives of the fossil fuel industry standing just out of sight. @CB – 97% of all global warming gasses is water vapor, necessary and without it our planet’s average temperature would be below freezing.

CO2 levels are small compared to the levels of water vapor but tends to be an amplifier of cooling and warming. Google “Vostok ice cores” and you will find gas measurements during an ice age where CO2 levels were 20 times higher than today. Hmmm, human technology was non-existent then so what is to blame?

It is the sun’s varying output that is the major cause of climate change. Major and minor solar cycles are the cause and when they coincide, we have extremes in climate, such as an ice-age. I have references but these can easily be googled to verify but I suspect that cool-aid drinkers will continue their rant. We should take practical means to control pollutants but not reactionary! Global warming should be proven or dis-proven with the scientific process, not political correctness driven by politicians whose only skill is lying to voters! The report by NOA && NASA, has been debunked by highly credentialed scientists as a complete FRAUD being perpetrated on the citizens to satisfy the Obama Administration.

In fact, they are also under investigation by a Senate Committee because of all the fraudulent politicized agenda-driving they have been doing. “Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.” •. Using the lies in question to prove truth from the lie? CB, ten, twenty years from now, this planets’ climate system will be just as you experience it today, the seas will not have risen, the Poles will be ice-laden, glaciers will not have melted.

Verdure will be plenteous. But you, dear friend? If Gaia wills it, you will awaken in your dark, urban ghetto hovel and light a candle to see by, slip on tree bark sandles and hobble down to your nearest government food queque that you may be blessed with your daily ration of soylent green-esque gruel to live on that day, that day and everyday you aren’t excised to lessen the human carbon footprint. Utopia will have been achieved. This is YOUR future, sop. You are the leftist equivalent of a street preacher.

You’re just a troll who agrees with your own opinion in the face of any facts. Your entire operating system is based on a combination of 2 things. Faith and ego. You believe the pseudo science of the left and you have acted upon that belief so frequently that a good chunk of your identity is now wrapped up in your misguided and puerile mission to “save the planet from republicans” or whatever. You are offering government sources to back government talking points.

That’s no different than using the bible to prove the bible. Global warming does not exist in any way that mankind is capable of preventing. The Earth is not flat, stationary and stable. There is no constant by which temperature can be judged. This planet is dynamic and ever-changing.

There are people who will try and use anything to gain power over others. They are usually easily identifiable by their desire to exert control over people that disagree with them. Global warming is a scam. It’s an ongoing system of control because the climate will never stabilize, regardless of anything mankind does or doesn’t do. CB uses links to back up his arguments, but has anyone else noticed virtually all his links are government-controlled propaganda outlets? This is the same government that told us ISIS is the JV team, and ISIS us under control, and the Benghazi attack was caused by “that Youtube video, and “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, etc, etc. Only a damn fool would have faith in today’s American government.

We now know what it must have been like to live in the Soviet Union with onlt TASS, Pravda, and Isvestia as news sources. Yet significantly cooler than 7000 years ago when the earth was finishing it rise out of the last ice age. Warming trends before heading towards a new ice age is somewhere between 8000 and 10000 years.

You know bases an all scientific evidence, even that of the “climate change”/”global warming” community excepts. This was actually the coolest of 4 heat spike in 450000 years, you know according to the graphs put out by MIT and NASA, the smartest scientists in the world that don’t rely on government grants to stay employed. Go read articles on “global warming” they all say that it isn’t that big of a deal because of the trends and then the last paragraph in everyone says “yet this leads scientist to believe (not conclude) that climate change exists.

We as a civilized people have only been able to actually keep weather records for less than 200 years, yet the warming trend for this planet peaked out 6000 years ago. Do your own homework people and don’t just fall for everything they try to tell you. Gee, excellent use of labeling a person so you can dismiss them as a stereotype.

I’m curious as to how you could make the mental leap from the discussion on climate change to the economic collapse of 2008 and President Bush. The Economic Collapse of 2008 was two decades in the making and started when the Federal Government lead by Liberal Democrats forced banks to begin making loans to people who truly could not afford them under the guise of “Fair-housing”.

But I’m sure you knew that already •. Wow, I bet your mental problem is really hard to pronounce.

Obviously you can’t even fathom a coherent response to your constantly being proven wrong. So tell us, with a head as vacant as yours, does the wind whistle when it blows through your ears? Please if you could.

Provide one, just one factual piece of evidence to back up any or your truly inane comments. It is quite obvious by checking your profile that you are truly an idiot in that you have more comments than you do up votes. Your parents truly owe you an apology, because they raised an absolute idiot for a child. This is the same NASA that Obama said should do more “outreach” to Muslims, right?

And, one warm year does not make a climate change, especially when the records show we’ve been in cooling “pause” from “global warming”, for 18 years, anyway. The globe was warmer during the dinosaur ages, and then there were the ice ages. What caused those climate changes? There were no men during the age of dinosaurs, according to main stream science, and not enough humans to matter, during the ice ages, right?

That’s evidence that man hasn’t influenced climate change in the past, so, you need really concrete evidence that man is influencing it now, and these scientists are evidence that there is no consensus in science, where climate change is concerned. And, where is the evidence that throwing money around will influence climate change if it is real?

Explain climate changes on Mars, there’s no SUV’s there. The warmest climate on Earth was in the beginning of Earth’s formation. The recording of weather is only a very short period of the millions of years on Earth, you have no real base of the true original temperatures. The hippie type nuts believed in the 1970’s in global cooling, then Al Bore made global warming, because of global warming discredited it’s now called climate change.

Follow the money path, you find it just makes a few Liberals rich, flying in their personal jets, LOL. Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun’s energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto. “that is the core of this con job” The greenhouse effect was discovered by people living over a century ago.

Is it likely they were engaging in a con to get grant money that no scientist on Earth has been able to identify in all that time? “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.” •. You are attempting to instruct someone who has studied the history of this globe for more than 40+ years, I do believe you need to dig deeper for you analysis that just the “choir” that has already signed on to the agenda. Or are you afraid you would end up like that french meteorologist who was canned for actually “questioning” the so called settled science.

(and that is a laughable term since no scientist of any merit would use that term because the flat earth used to be “settled science” until it wasn’t •. Most climate research is aimed at proving the earth is warming and that man caused it?

Why and where is the research proving otherwise. Wellhere is the answer. Researchers respond to RFP (research funding proposals) from politicized federal agencies BECAUSE that is where the money is. There are no RFPs from anti warming agencies. AND, academic researcher’s promotion, tenure, and merit salary decisions are based on publication record (in “refereed journals). These journals send papers out for peer review and the process is incestuous.

If you pan a colleague’s research methods or conclusions you risk getting your own paper torpedoed. AND, research to prove that global warming does not exist is next to impossible to do. You can not prove a negative. A positive can be proven with one instance of increased temperature. A negative conclusion would have to be based on every date point in history and would still be subject to criticism for not seeing into the future. AND, look at the politics involved.

Every “victim” of global warming has their hand out hoping for cash for remediation. No warming denier is expecting to get anything but must pay for it all. Billions of dollars are being spent on fraud and waste.

And many industries are thriving on the hoax. EXCEPT that climate research is diverse incorporating EXCEPT that in a world built on and driven by cheap, readily available fossil fuel energy every political, economic and social imperative screams out for the continuation of the status quo. EXCEPT that any scientists who could provide definitive proof that AGW is not real would be showered by rewards from grateful politicians and industries. They could pick up their Nobel award on the way to a very highly paid job with the oil or coal industry. Yet no-one does, not even when they are funded by the Koch Bros. EXCEPT that with trillions of dollars of assets at risk of being stranded it seems highly unlikely that fossil fuel industries would not be falling over themselves to fund publishing costs for sympathetic research.

EXCEPT that if the temperatures took a downward turn, we would not even be having this discussion, but when year in year out the climate warms as predicted, and almost nothing that sites like this one say has proven correct, then yes your case is very hard to make. EXCEPT that when you look at the politics of this you see a toxic issue, if a politician doesn’t deal with it they look impotent (Democrats) or plain stupid and corrupt (most Republican – history will not be kind). If a politician doe deal with the problem they will be asking the electorate to give up some cherished freedoms, endure financial hardships and tolerate a complete upending of our way of life. That politician will be committing electoral suicide, and yet they will increasingly do all of these things because if they don’t we are looking at a different kind of suicide. Money.and power. Let’s not forget about the power.

The reason global governments are more than happy to fund these bogus “studies” is a socialist power grab with the ambitious goal of controlling global economic resources and putting themselves in charge to distribute/resdistribute the wealth produced from those resources. Catastrophic climate alarmism where the boogeyman is the free market capitalists and factories that produce wealth allows the socialists to make the claim to replace the evil business people who suffer human frailties with benevolent politicians who have halos over their heads and fly unicorns. Surely, they argue, the politicians will make better decisions than business people. They will be better stewards of other people’s resources and therefore more efficient and effective at managing those resources and producing a sustainable prosperity for all. Again, we are living in the 21st century.

History is what it is. What does any shred of your statement have to do with modern times.

I thought you progressives were called that because you had evolved to a higher level of being. More intelligent, science based, hate religion, agnostic or atheist, generally better than your average Joe. No you defend the most barbaric of practices because you are too PC and do not wish to offend Muslims. I only wish you shared the same sentiment for Jews and Christians. You are hateful and John Kerry slipped and spoke the truth about your ilk. You believe there is some kind of legitimacy to their cause because England put Israel back where it has always been. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that you do not believe all people are created equal.

Progressives are created superior. Just google either name and you will get plenty of side by side photos of the two men mentioned. Any link I would provide would be called biased. Do you trust your own 2 eyes or not? That is the final question you have to ask yourself in today’s BS world. Also google Israeli captured in Iraq leading ISIS, they caught an actual IDF Officer leading the ISIS in part of Iraq.

WHy believe MSM, Brian Williams was one of the most trusted news anchors and he was total liar. He said he was in a helicopter that got shot down by an RPG but was actually 2 hours behind it in another helicopter.

Plus if you take an hour and find owner of every major News channel they are owned by Jews, same people profiting from war, etc. So why would Jews report this stuff on their own propaganda networks? Why do they report only Jewish Victims of Holocaust and always Hitler but never Mao and Stalin who killed many times more than Hitler? The German scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) was of the opinion that this first horseman was ORIGINALLY A SUN-GOD: “His horse is white (as in the white horse of the divine slayer of the dragon; the white horse of Mithras in the Avesta)” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St.

The same volume states that “according to Weissthe victorious Rider [of the white horse] REPRESENTS THE VICTORIOUS COURSE OF THE GOSPEL, which must be preached to all nations before the woes come.” What in the world are you reading? Whatever the pale horse represents, we know that God will judge the world in righteousness someday and that everyone will have to give an account for what they did in their lives. Revelation 20:12-15 tells the fatal outcome for all who refused to repent and trust in Christ, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” this has nothing to do with pointing out Muslims but everyone including people who claim to be Christians and who don’t follow Christ.

I’m interested in truth not foolish speculations. The command to kill given by God to the Jews was a very specific command to kill certain people at a particular time. God did not command the Jews to perpetually kill those who did not hold a common belief, as the Muslim’s Allah is alleged to have done.

Besides that, the Old Testament stories about a Jewish campaign at God’s command are nonsense. Most of the places the Jews are alleged to have destroyed and taken 1.) didn’t exist at the time, 2.) had been destroyed by others before the time of the alleged Jewish campaign (and some were re-occupied by Jews much later), or 3.) they existed at the time but show no evidence of having been attacked.

If you believe the OT story of the Jewish conquest, you believe in a fairy tale. The mythology was nationalistic propaganda created to bind together the disparate people who called themselves Hebrews and give them an identity of “conquerors” so they could make claims to greatness like the truly great powers that surrounded them. Islamic militancy is not a fairy tale; it is here, it is real.

If Muhammad’s mother was a Jew, then Muhammad was a Jew by tradition. But he became something else by a change in his belief system – like being born a Catholic and converting to become a Baptist. Being born into one tradition or another doesn’t cast someone’s belief system in stone. Get over this. Race is not a problem. Ignorance is. The truth is God does not need religion.

It is man who has the problem. The atrocities committed in the name of God, by whatever name he is called, are not justified nor approved by Him. He doesn’t need our help. So many souls are misguided by their own teachers. God does not need our help. We are direly i need of His.

Defend your home and the ones you love. Lay down your life for another.

Protect all you hold dear. We shall meet in Paradise. Here’s what the Religion of peace teaches[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip. Quaran 8:12 “The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? Quaran 9:30 •.

Liars, morons and mental defectives. The best example of a leftist that we have seen in the past 10 years is Rachel Dolezal (the former president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, WA).

She is a delusional liar who KNEW she was white yet she pretended to be black because she is obviously deranged. And the black folks who looked at her, knew she was obviously a white woman, and yet said nothing to discredit her obvious ruse are just as bad. Liberals, Progressives and leftists are all Rachel Dolezal’sderanged, delusional liars.