Pope on Climate Change

[patrick jane]

c'mon pope, speak english

 

[patrick jane]

On the other hand, what if the mantra that "CO₂ causes global warming" is a big hoax and we destroy civilization with carbon taxes without creating a better world?

i dream of a better world. where the air is sweet, the weather is fine, everyone has food and shelter and security. a world where everyone has an easy job with minimal duties and no supervision. top paying jobs with 4 weeks vacations for everybody. Cable TV with HBO and new shoes on every foot. cake and steak on every table -

 

[genuineoriginal]

Also, you do highlight a glaring weakness of those who are against the exploration of renewable energy in relation to climate change. It isn't a silver bullet and the change will not be instantaneous.

I have no problem with the exploration of renewable energy as a goal, but do have a problem with it being done as a reaction to the climate change hoax.

The technology needed to replace carbon fuels is expensive to research and develop, so it will take a strong economy to provide for this research.

If you destroy the economy through carbon taxes, then you will not have the ability to continue the research into the technology to replace carbon fuels.

no one is claiming a single source will fix everything and it will take years to see a measurable difference.

You forgot to put the words "thousands of" before the word "years" in your statement.

 

[genuineoriginal]

i dream of a better world. where the air is sweet, the weather is fine, everyone has food and shelter and security. a world where everyone has an easy job with minimal duties and no supervision. top paying jobs with 4 weeks vacations for everybody. Cable TV with HBO and new shoes on every foot. cake and steak on every table -

Good, then you will oppose the destruction of the economy through carbon taxes.

 

[Quetzal]

I have no problem with the exploration of renewable energy as a goal, but do have a problem with it being done as a reaction to the climate change hoax.

Why? If the outcome is the same why do you care?

The technology needed to replace carbon fuels is expensive to research and develop, so it will take a strong economy to provide for this research.

To be honest, it has been happening all along. Just not as quickly as we might hope.

If you destroy the economy through carbon taxes, then you will not have the ability to continue the research into the technology to replace carbon fuels.

You keep lumping this fear mongering idea of carbon taxes and imminent destruction due to it into this topic. I simply don't see any evidence to support your claim.

You forgot to put the words "thousands of" before the word "years" in your statement.

To see measurable results? Probably not that long.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why? If the outcome is the same why do you care?

The outcome won't be the same.
That is why I care.

To be honest, it has been happening all along. Just not as quickly as we might hope.

Resorting to a false threat of "climate change" is the wrong way to make the development faster.

You keep lumping this fear mongering idea of carbon taxes and imminent destruction due to it into this topic. I simply don't see any evidence to support your claim.

You keep fear mongering the idea that the CO₂ from fossil fuels is going to cause imminent destruction of the climate, and I simply don't see any real evidence to support your claim.

To see measurable results? Probably not that long.

You are probably right. After all, how long would it take to stop cooking the data and let the real numbers tell a different story?

 

[Quetzal]

The outcome won't be the same.
That is why I care.

Sure it will, why would it be different? The only difference would be if there is a federal funding program, it would be accelerated.

Resorting to a false threat of "climate change" is the wrong way to make the development faster.

It is a theory and there are documented problems beginning to occur with more frequency and intensity.

You keep fear mongering the idea that the CO₂ from fossil fuels is going to cause imminent destruction of the climate, and I simply don't see any real evidence to support your claim.

There is evidence, you are simply choosing to ignore it because you don't agree with the premise.

You are probably right. After all, how long would it take to stop cooking the data and let the real numbers tell a different story?

Why are the numbers we are using now "cooked data" and what data would you consider to be "real numbers"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sure it will, why would it be different? The only difference would be if there is a federal funding program, it would be accelerated.

:rotfl:
Thank you for the laugh.
I expect that a federal funded "War on CO₂ emissions" would be as effective as the "War on Drugs".

It is a theory and there are documented problems beginning to occur with more frequency and intensity.

However, the theory is based on the presumption that global warming is caused by a rise in CO₂ when the data shows that the warming precedes the rise, so your cause (CO₂) is happening after the effect (warming).
It is time to go back to the drawing board and find a new theory.

There is evidence, you are simply choosing to ignore it because you don't agree with the premise.

Yes, I don't agree with the premise that the cause happens after the effect is is suppose to be producing.

How about this premise?
The Weather Weapons being tested by the United States and other major world powers are causing the weather effects blamed on CO₂.

Why are the numbers we are using now "cooked data" and what data would you consider to be "real numbers"?

How about data that is not cooked to "hide the decline" for a start?

 

[Quetzal]

:rotfl:
Thank you for the laugh.
I expect that a federal funded "War on CO₂ emissions" would be as effective as the "War on Drugs".


However, the theory is based on the presumption that global warming is caused by a rise in CO₂ when the data shows that the warming precedes the rise, so your cause (CO₂) is happening after the effect (warming).
It is time to go back to the drawing board and find a new theory.


Yes, I don't agree with the premise that the cause happens after the effect is is suppose to be producing.

How about this premise?
The Weather Weapons being tested by the United States and other major world powers are causing the weather effects blamed on CO₂.


How about data that is not cooked to "hide the decline" for a start?

Weather weapons... I have heard some conspiracy theories in my day, but you sir have taken the cake. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Weather weapons... I have heard some conspiracy theories in my day, but you sir have taken the cake. :chuckle:

You need to get out more.

_____
Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare

‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes: ‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’
. . .
_____​

If the climate is really being changed by man, then the first place to look for what is causing the change would be the people that have spent the last 75 years developing and testing the technologies that are designed to cause massive climate change.

 

[Quetzal]

If the climate is really being changed by man, then the first place to look for what is causing the change would be the people that have spent the last 75 years developing and testing the technologies that are designed to cause massive climate change.

Let me get this straight. You reject the notion that the thousands of satellites in space can give us accurate atmospheric temperature models related to CO2 emissions, but have no trouble believing that the government can control the weather? Create a cannon to produce hurricanes, maybe? And all of this is based on a 2007 blog post with broken links and sources? :chuckle: No thanks, champ.

 

[Nick M]

I recorded him on PMSNBC and haven't watched it yet. Did he tell his audience of mostly heathen non believers that Jesus died for the sin of the world and was raised for their justification? He has the perfect chance at the UN.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Let me get this straight. You reject the notion that the thousands of satellites in space can give us accurate atmospheric temperature models related to CO2 emissions,

No, I reject the notion that the climate simulations based on CO₂ levels are accurate, since the climate simulations are known to be NP-complete problems (impossible to solve with computers in a reasonable time).
When you combine the known inability of computers to model the atmosphere with the known alteration of the data (hide the decline) that does not fit a pet theory, then it is not hard to come to the conclusion that there is something rotten about the whole "global warming/climate change" propaganda.

but have no trouble believing that the government can control the weather?

Either the government can or the government can't.
What is known is that the government has been carrying out research into turning climate change into a weapon.

So, the first place to look when the climate starts changing is towards those people that are actually trying to change the climate.

Here is a more recent article, if you are interested:
Global Weather Weaponry And Military Atmospheric Geoengineering: Global Climate Change Artificially Manufactured

 

[rexlunae]

I lived through the time when gasoline went from 80 cents a gallon to over 4 dollars a gallon.

And it did that entirely without a carbon tax. Maybe it's not such a reliable, abundant source of energy after all.

Do you think I had nothing to be scared of then?

Forget climate change. China and India and Africa are industrializing rapidly, at the same time as easily accessible fossil fuels are being depleted. For our own energy security, we need to look at new sources of energy. The rise in oil prices over your lifetime should reinforce that point.

The proposals for carbon taxes will end up causing the same 500% increase in energy costs, but there will not be a natural disaster to blame it on.

I use solar panels to generate most of my energy needs. They weren't cheap, but they will save me money over their projected lifespan.

 

[Quetzal]

No, I reject the notion that the climate simulations based on CO₂ levels are accurate, since the climate simulations are known to be NP-complete problems (impossible to solve with computers in a reasonable time).
When you combine the known inability of computers to model the atmosphere with the known alteration of the data (hide the decline) that does not fit a pet theory, then it is not hard to come to the conclusion that there is something rotten about the whole "global warming/climate change" propaganda.


Either the government can or the government can't.
What is known is that the government has been carrying out research into turning climate change into a weapon.

So, the first place to look when the climate starts changing is towards those people that are actually trying to change the climate.

Here is a more recent article, if you are interested:
Global Weather Weaponry And Military Atmospheric Geoengineering: Global Climate Change Artificially Manufactured

Well, you can go ahead denying the data in front of you in lieu of a conspiracy theory regarding the governments ability to control the weather. But, I will not be joining you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And it did that entirely without a carbon tax. Maybe it's not such a reliable, abundant source of energy after all.

Yes, the restrictions on drilling and processing of petroleum put in place by liberal ideologues has made a reliable abundant source of energy much more difficult to extract and deliver to the people that need to use it.
Of course, the petroleum companies had no problem hiking up the prices (and their profits), so we heard no complaint from them.

Forget climate change. China and India and Africa are industrializing rapidly, at the same time as easily accessible fossil fuels are being depleted. For our own energy security, we need to look at new sources of energy. The rise in oil prices over your lifetime should reinforce that point.

The estimate of the oil in the oil shale reserves in the Green River deposits in the western United States is almost 3 times the number of barrels of oil contained in the entire world's conventional oil reserves.
Let's start there.

I use solar panels to generate most of my energy needs. They weren't cheap, but they will save me money over their projected lifespan.

The replacement costs for the solar panels and the batteries tend to make it more expensive, but congratulations on finding a way to live off the grid, it gives you a better chance of surviving the coming energy crisis.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, you can go ahead denying the data in front of you in lieu of a conspiracy theory regarding the governments ability to control the weather. But, I will not be joining you.

_____
Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another. Managing the audience's attention is the aim of all theater, it is the foremost requirement of theatrical magic.
_____​

Oh look, CO₂ is causing Climate Change.
(Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain)

:carryon:

 

[Stripe]

No, I reject the notion that the climate simulations based on CO₂ levels are accurate.

Almost certainly. The good thing is, the satellite data is very good, and when it has been up and running for a few years we will see it showing no significant upward trend to CO₂ levels. :up:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Does the Pope have a winter costume, and a summer costume?

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, the restrictions on drilling and processing of petroleum put in place by liberal ideologues has made a reliable abundant source of energy much more difficult to extract and deliver to the people that need to use it.
Of course, the petroleum companies had no problem hiking up the prices (and their profits), so we heard no complaint from them.

So, why would the petroleum companies' calculus be any different if the government would let them drill anywhere they want? Some of these companies are willing to buy the drilling rights and just sit on them so that no one else can bring the oil to market.

The estimate of the oil in the oil shale reserves in the Green River deposits in the western United States is almost 3 times the number of barrels of oil contained in the entire world's conventional oil reserves.
Let's start there.

Shale oil is an inherently expensive source to extract. It only makes sense in high oil price environments. That's why so many of the people working the wells in North Dakota are getting laid off as Saudi Arabia floods the market with cheap conventional oil.

The replacement costs for the solar panels and the batteries tend to make it more expensive, but congratulations on finding a way to live off the grid, it gives you a better chance of surviving the coming energy crisis.

The panels are warrantied to produce 80% of the current total for the next 20 years, which will pay for the whole cost several times over, even at today's prices, and even ignoring the subsidies. It doesn't allow me to live off the grid, not without a battery backup, which I don't have, and I don't envision installing any time soon. I could, at some point, but right now net metering makes a lot more sense.