AmericanPapist Comments
Cardinal Pell is not a scientist. Mr. Peters should listen to the authoritative voices of scientists around the world, not the unscientific judgments of a cardinal.
But we should listen to the unscientific judgments of a former vice-President????
Mr. Peters should listen to the authoritative voices of scientists around the world, not the unscientific judgments of a cardinal.
As if that's going to happen. Peters Sr and Jr are much more comfortable aping whatever reactionary is blustering about this issue rather than looking into it themselves.
They both pretend that they are well informed about the topic, but it's patently obvious they know very little about it, nor have they taken the time to get up to speed.
The "concerned skeptic" furrowed brow they wear is borrowed.
Would you care to respond to the actual claims the cardinal quotes?
My goodness, Carbon, why the personal attack?
There is a film coming out in July titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It gives the other side of the story. There are many reputable scientists who disagree with the whole global warming theory. Are we not allowed to hear the other side without worrying about being verbally assaulted??
I'm sorry, but His Eminence fails to see the forest for the trees. Global warming does indeed get its name from the fact that global AVERAGE temperature is on the rise, but it does not mean that temperatures will rise EVERYWHERE. In fact, there is a risk that the rising in the temperature of the sea in the Caribbean may interrupt the Gulf Stream, which will cause precipitous drops in temperature across Atlantic Europe -- Lisbon is in the same latitude as New York, but is considerably warmer. It could be that Europe becomes as cold as Canada, and the phenomenon would STILL exist and still be most properly called "global warming".
I definitely think that critical thought is needed in this issue more than many others -- there have been many unconstructive knee-jerk reactions in the Global Warming camp -- but unfortunately, His Eminence's arguments do not hold. He may be right that it is futile to think we can control climate, but we can at least control the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that will do much more than many people think to mitigate these climate changes happening the world over.
The average global temperature has been increasing, with frequent dips, for 10,000 years. That's why we aren't in an ice age. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in the last 20 years or even 200 years. It's cooler now than it was in the 1930s, when the Arctic ice cap last melted. We still have polar bears, which are in fact on the increase.
Carbon dioxide contributes 3% of the greenhouse effect. Man-made carbon dioxide is 3% of all carbon dioxide. Water vapor contributes 95% of the greenhouse effect and there is nothing we can do about that. So eliminating ALL man-made CO2 would have NO effect on climate. It would have a terrible effect on us.
Read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years to get the real science on climate change, written by a scientist, Dr. S. Fred Singer and citing hundreds of other scientists.
Would you care to respond to the actual claims the cardinal quotes?
Ah, the wise sage himself. So wise, so sagely. Yet so transparent.
Would you care to admit that you haven't done much homework on this topic?
Cardinal Pell began his article by giving recent examples of countries that have experienced more bitter temperatures and heavier snow than usual.
Weather is all about the movement of heat and moisture from one place to another. It's entirely sympathetic with the notion that there is a human effect beyond natural causes.
Beyond that, a recent cold winter does nothing to really prove anything either way.
“Last December more than 100 prominent international scientists, some of them members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned the U.N. that attempting to control the earth’s climate was “ultimately futile”.
That there is a heterodoxy is hardly news. No one has ever claimed that there exists 100% certainty or unanimity. But the numbers are overwhelmingly tilted towards a human exacerbated thesis. This in no way makes it automatically right. There was a time when malaria was consensually thought to be caused by breathing "bad air" (the literal meaning of the word). However, there is some very compelling peer-reviewed science behind the now orthodox position.
And the "warning to the UN" that Pell refers to is a roll call of denialists who co-signed a letter to one of their main friendly organs: the National Post, timed to coincide with the Bali summit. Some pretty dubious people on that list, too:-
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
20...utters_list.php
Most importantly the global temperature has not increased since 2001. Global warming has ceased (New Statesman 19/12/2007).
Oh, really?
Have a read of this:-
"I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average."
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011
The last point to be acknowledged is that today’s computer models cannot predict climate over long periods because there are too many unknowns and variables.
This is a nonsense talking point. 1) No one is claiming 100% predictability, and 2) "cannot predict" is a ridiculous comment when 1) is taken into account. They CAN predict. The argument is about their accuracy. This statement seems to imply that there are utterly useless, which is just bulldung.
Really, Peters Jr, you and Pell are cribbing from the same cheat sheet. And you have both started from the point where you want to end up. Not a good idea when trying to formulate a balanced view.
Do your homework. It'll make you look like less of a naif when you blather about the subject.
(Standard disclaimer: I am not saying the orthodox position has been 100% proven. )
My goodness, Carbon, why the personal attack?
Because Peters Pater et Filius PERSONALLY garble on about something they know very little about. Who should I take that up with besides them?
There is a film coming out in July titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
The piece of garbage isn't coming out in July. It's been out for a while. Go do some research on it.
CBLF, I'd appreciate being left out of discussions I haven't joined.
CBLF, I'd appreciate being left out of discussions I haven't joined.
You've certainly joined the discussion in the past.
Have you changed your tune?
CBLF, you know next to nothing about tactics, or basic civility, in public discourse. For all you know, I did not post precisely because I was rethinking the issues, but your trying to egg me on might have the effect of locking me into my position.
You'll never know, tho, because I do not "debate" with people who are too cowardly to post under a real and verifiable name. If my posts, intended to benefit others who read this blog, seem to be replies to you, well, I can't help that.
I will observe that CBLF ridicules the credentials (in his or her opinion, the LACK of credentials) of those who disagree with him. Or her.
Yet CBLF never states his or her own credentials! Readers know, and can assess for themselves, the background of Cdl Pell, or Thom Peters, or me, regarding this matter. But about CBLF, we know absolutely nothing. Why? Because CBLF wants it that way. Until he or she admits an identity, in a verifiable way, we have no reason to think he or she has any more basis for his/her position than would anyone else who knows how to type and has access to computer. Indeed, the evidence suggests that we are dealing with someone who is so emotionally committed to a position that, under cover of anonymity, s/he routinely engages in ad hominem attacks, belittling opponents, and posturing a moral high ground that mirror an ideologue, not a true scientist or philosopher.
CBLF; if you hate warm weather move north. We will gladly take the heat! We have had enough snow.
Why do we have to believe only scientists who are proponents of man-made global warming? They are as weak and subject to greed, envy, laziness and thirst for power as any other person.
you know next to nothing about tactics, or basic civility, in public discourse.
I do not "debate" with people who are too cowardly to post under a real and verifiable name.
Indeed, the evidence suggests that we are dealing with someone who is so emotionally committed to a position
I noticed "know next to nothing," "cowardly" and "emotionally committed," which directly deal with CBLF's person (ad hominem) rather than any part of CBLF's position. How could someone make these observations based upon a few comments on a blog? Then I saw the following remark:
s/he routinely engages in ad hominem attacks, belittling opponents, and posturing a moral high ground that mirror an ideologue, not a true scientist or philosopher.
And I think to myself: How could someone set up this last comment with a host of belittling ad hominem statements and expect to be taken seriously? I mean, it's right there. On top of it all, CBLF is told he/she resembles an "ideologue." Come on, can't we think a little bit harder before we defend our stinging pride? At least let's not reprimand by doing the very thing over which we are reprimanding.
Policraticus, please note, I was describing behavoir, not persons. It is a legitmate, if subtle, distinction. Anyway, you know how I feel about extended discussions with posters who do not use real names. It's just not worth one's time.
"Policraticus, please note, I was describing behavoir, not persons."
This.
CBLF's behavior in this thread has been entirely out of line. An apology is owed to Ed, and perhaps to Thom as well.
Also, being a scientist does not make one correct on an issue.
Scientists in the past have been wrong, even on issues which there were a "consensus."
Being a theologian does not make one correct on all matters of theology.
Being an Italian does not make one correct on all matters pertaining to Italy.
Here is a clear statement: Global warming can not be demonstrated through the scientific method because the scientific method relies on repeated experiments with controlled conditions.
It case anyone hasn't noticed, I post a story along the lines of this one about once a month and measure the response.
I don't think I've ever once witnessed a fruitful debate come out of it, instead it's this vicious rhetoric.
It's dissapointing because I would hope people could address the topic sanely. I think that's actually one of the points Cardinal Pell is trying to make, and one I thought that would be easy for everyone to agree on.
Really, no one is going to convince the other side if this is the way they go about it. Last of all me.
That there isn't 100% agreement among scientists is irrelevant. The overwhelming consensus on the matter is relevant. To say otherwise would mean that something established among the scientific community, such as say, evolution, in which you can certainly find tenured scientists who oppose the theory, is invalidated because of the doubts of a few despite the evidence that has led John Paul II to say that it's more than just a theory. As for protecting the environment, it was obviously important enough for Benedict to mention as an objective to work towards among the international community. But what's that guy know?
Pell's most egregious mistake in his argument, in my mind, is by citing the weather in China and Canada this past year. Well, yeah, but most every climatologist I've read agrees that there has been weather that would counter global warming, but they also say climatology is about averages over time, not freak occurrences. That's why when politicians and activists were screaming there would be more Hurricane Katrinas, climatologists were much more moderate in saying it's possible but let's be much more cautious in making claims.
I'm curious what the cardinal means when he says fighting climate change shifts resources away from the most vulnerable. How many of you have ever been to China? The air over there is disgusting, you have to strain to see the adjacent skyscraper in Shanghai, and I can't recall the exact figure, but the number of respiratory illnesses and deaths are appalling. So if the government there became altruistic and decided to stop putting a new coal plant online every week and went with cleaner nuclear energy instead (yes, I'm aware of how the hard core environmentalists even oppose this energy source), what resources are being diverted? And it isn't it worth it to help improve the living conditions of your citizens?
As for our non-authoritarian government, how does telling Detroit that they need to raise their mileage standards pull resources away from helping people cope with inevitable climate change? Or that factories must cap their emissions? One can say that, based on forecasts, doing so will hurt the economy, but how can these people call climate forecasts bogus but economic forecasts legitimate? Shifting to a green economy might even create jobs and might even entice Americans to start buying Detroit-made cars (me, I just bought a new Honda Civic to replace a Mazda 3. I can't imagine myself buying a GM vehicle again, mainly because their compact models suck in both looks and mileage. Mom and Dad are looking at buying a Chevy Malibu Hybrid, which makes me ecstatic, but that's not exactly an appealing car to a guy in his mid-20s.)
I'll never understand the reactionary viewpoint on this. No one has ever given a good answer to the question of why should we consume so much and destroy so much when we have the means not to? It's like people want to waste resources just because they can.
(Cont.) Is household recycling that big of a burden to the average family? Is it necessary to drive a big Ford Expedition? I think the focus on whether or not global warming is real takes away from the simple fact that our habits have immense implications on a host of things. Do people not like cleaner air and cleaner water? Should we not even attempt to be energy independent from authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Venezuela? The prevailing attitude of "What I do is my business and if it doesn't directly affect you, then what's it to you?" needs to be changed. I'm just not certain how to go about doing that in a nation whose very culture embodies such individualism.
I don't think anyone on the other side of the argument is saying that we should waste so much and destroy our environment, Nathan. That is not really a fair thing to say. But if there are scientists who see other things going on here what is wrong with talking about it???
Kathy, I'm all for debate. Debate exposes doubt. I'm not even totally sold of the consequences of global warming. Forecasting is so inexact, but as for the past 150 years of measurements, the evidence is pretty staggering. Whether this is a natural cycle, I don't know. More research is necessary. So I'm willing to listen to what the small number of dissident scientists have to say, but what they say has to be countered by the majority of scientists in the field.
Was my generalization fair? I don't have any reason to believe it wasn't. Opponents of global warming aren't saying we should profligately waste, but I also don't see any of them saying, "Yeah, we're skeptical of global warming claims and the consequences, but we still see the importance of conserving our resources." If more were saying that, we'd have very different consumption habits in this country. But Pell certainly never alluded to that, among many other global warming critics, such as George Will, who is quite convincing when he writes against the idea of global warming. Instead, what you often get is "global warming is nothing but a myth used to advance the liberal agenda" and whatnot. How the global warming "agenda" of conservation and preservation is deleterious, nobody's ever bothered to explain to me. I don't see how these people can possibly be labeled as in favor of helping the environment when they don't ever say that's something we need to do. Even if all these scientists are pushing an agenda, you likewise have to ask yourself what agenda the opposition scientists and commentators are pushing. Neither side can say, "My scientists are only pursuing the truth and we've got the facts while yours are ideologues who are spreading lies."
I'm all for debate, but at some point in a debate, one side wins. With the amount of evidence pointing towards global warming, the debate's not over, but Pell and others have their work cut out for them to convince us otherwise.
Ah, Thomas has antagonized the left-wing loons, for whom "Global Warming" is the highest form of religion - far more dogmatic then Catholicism is or could ever hope to be. The global warming crowed reminds me of the folks that burned witches in New England in the 17th century: consumed by hysteria armed with scanty evidence for their convictions. The folks who were promoting "global freezing" 30 years now are promoting "global warming". By by, loons. Your minds are closed like a trap. And Cardinal Pell has your number! Tom
Nathan,
I still think you are making an unfair generalization. I would be willing to bet that there are people on the global warming bandwagon who do very little to save and conserve. On the other hand, people who question the global warming theory, like myself, can be reducers/reusers/recyclers. Why do you paint a whole group of people with the same brush? Are you suggesting that only the people who question are responsible for overconsumption??
Kathy, I would certainly agree that the number of those who speak about protecting the environment but are hypocrites in action is quite large, but I would also say that it's much more likely that those who voice concerns about environmental degradation are the ones who are primarily taking preventive efforts. I have no doubt that people who question global warming also engage in green behavior, and that's great. As I said, I'm not quite certain of the adverse consequences that are attributed to global warming--I do believe in the enormous amount of evidence that the earth is warming up, either naturally or because of man--and yet I'm as green in my behavior as I can be. The problem with those who question global warming, however, is that the scientists who oppose it and other non-scientific commentators who speak on a soapbox never acknowledge the need for conservation. At least not the arguments I've read. And frankly, I don't understand why that is. So if I generalize about the global warming opposition as being wasteful consumers, it's because the leading spokesmen for that view don't acknowledge that regardless of the veracity of global warming, a change in consumption behavior is desperately needed. That's all I'm looking for.
Quite frankly, I don't care if no one believed in global warming so long as they were still environmentally conscious. It saddens me that there are such simple things we can all do to minimize our impact on the environment and yet, in this country, the overwhelming majority chooses not to because they don't want to change their ways, and that includes some of my closest friends. To go off on a bit of a tangent, in my home state of Kansas, it's third among states in greatest potential for producing wind power, and yet people refuse to allow permission for wind farms to be built, and the legislature is trying to override a veto to permit two new coal power plants. Rural Western Kansas is dying, and renewable energy would be a great way to rejuvenate it. As reluctant as I am to bag on my home, the lack of forward thinking isn't all that surprising given how the State School Board saw fit to introduce Creationism in science classrooms. One day we'll get wise, though. :)
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax--perpetrated by people whose goals are:
>>>>>Global socialism imposed by a global government--run by themselves, of course.
>>>>>Murdering a large portion of the human race. Some have stated the goal of reducing the human population to 50 MILLION.
Some of these very people have advocated keeping the ban on DDT in perpetuity (despite evidence that the claims of its dangers were grossly exaggerated) BECAUSE the ban is resulting in tens of millions of deaths per year from malaria.
The Global Warming Hoax is already killing people on the margins, from lack of clean fuel (they have to burn dung instead), lack of affordable transportation for food and other goods, etc. The Ozone Hole Hoax--promoted by DuPont just in time for the expiration of the patents on the OLD Freon and the introduction of the NEW Inferior Freon--is resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths as old refrigerators die, and replacement of the old Freon is impossible, and new refrigerators are unaffordable. (The new Freon requires a new refrigerator designed to use it.) The Ethanol Hoax is killing more millions, and the death toll is accelerating.
The fact that these serial hoaxes are originated and flogged by the Eugenics/Abortion/Euthanasia/Enviro-wacko/
Communist/Socialists is no accident. Al Gore, who is competing for the title Most Diversified Promoter of Evil on the Planet, has been up to his neck (and making $100 Million and counting just since 2001) in all these hoaxes, and in promoting death in every possible form.
"I don't think I've ever once witnessed a fruitful debate come out of it, instead it's this vicious rhetoric."
I see what you mean, AmP. I see what you mean.
The issue of consumption is a fair one... but in a sense it is also a red herring.
From a Catholic perspective, consumerism and over-consumption are moral issues. That means it's not an issue of consequences.
We should live a certain way, act a certain way, consume a certain way, precisely because it is the right thing to do. Morality is not determined by the consequences.
I'm glad that Fr. Joe cleared up the issue with his calm and rational argument that was simply rife with accurate citations and credible sources.
I should have added that the adherents of the "GLobal Warming Religion" are humorless, another similarity to those Puritans I mentioned in my earlier post. Tom
I will observe that CBLF ridicules the credentials (in his or her opinion, the LACK of credentials) of those who disagree with him. Or her.
Yet CBLF never states his or her own credentials!
I have no relevant credentials, other than a fair bit of listening to programs on and reading articles about the topic at hand. From many different viewpoints: ortho and heterodox.
That's how I can tell you (plural) have very little clue: when you and Jr. have blathered about this topic in the past it has always had the ring of the wingnut dilettante about it. You hunker down comfortably behind a barricade of ideology, spewing about "The Collective Left" and other such nonsense. This is the fatal tell. If you had done your homework, you would realise that it isn't so easy to wave it all away with your tedious sophistry. Do many left leaners hold the issue as crucial? Yes. But that has very little effect on the underlying science. You can, however, easily make it a case that it has an effect on policy. That doesn't excuse you from actually trying just the tiniest bit to educate yourself about the substrata of the issue, though.
Yet CBLF never states his or her own credentials! Readers know, and can assess for themselves, the background of Cdl Pell, or Thom Peters, or me, regarding this matter. But about CBLF, we know absolutely nothing. Why? Because CBLF wants it that way. Until he or she admits an identity, in a verifiable way, we have no reason to think he or she has any more basis for his/her position than would anyone else who knows how to type and has access to computer.
What in the name of heck does it matter? If I were a disembodied hand in a jar that crept out every now and then to use the nearest internet connection, would it change the substance of what I am saying?
Which is, just in case you missed it: you know very little about this subject. Are you willing to admit that? And if so, why the past bluster?
The fact that these serial hoaxes are originated and flogged by the Eugenics/Abortion/Euthanasia/Enviro-wacko/ Communist/Socialists is no accident.
The only way to defend yourself from an attack by the EAEEwCSs is a very good tin foil hat.
Those gamma rays they use are strong!
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
