The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Ah yes, wonderful idea, injecting religion into both the oil & gas industry and the climate change panic industry.

The Pope is religiously shutting down dissent and chastising anyone who dares question the questionable theories behind the Climate Panic Industry and its higher purpose, high Carbon Taxes imposed by Western governments (while China, India, Africa, Asia, and pretty much the majority of the the world's population, apparently get a free pass on Carbon Taxes).

Before I link the article, here is a wonderful quote I ran across this morning from an anonymous comment elsewhere.  Very much applicable to the Pope's attitude here, in my opinion:

 

"Socialism isn’t an end goal.
Totalitarianism is the end goal of socialism.

Permanent socialism doesn’t exist, it’s a means to an end. 
The end: total government control."

 

What I see here is the Pope pushing for totalitarian control, unquestioning obedience to Climate Panic Theology.  And huge Carbon Taxes.  Total Government Control.

 

================================
Pope backs carbon pricing to stem global warming

Vatican City | Pope Francis said on Friday that carbon pricing is "essential" to stem global warming - his clearest statement yet in support of penalising polluters - and appealed to climate change deniers to listen to science.

In an address to energy executives at the end of a two-day meeting, he also called for "open, transparent, science-based and standardised" reporting of climate risk and a "radical energy transition" away from carbon to save the planet.

Carbon pricing, via taxes or emissions trading schemes, is used by many governments to make energy consumers pay for the costs of using the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming, and to spur investment in low-carbon technology.

The Vatican did not release the names of those who attended the closed-door meeting at its Academy of Sciences, a follow-up to one a year ago, but industry sources said the companies represented were believed to be the industry giants Eni, Exxon, Total, Repsol, BP, Sinopec, ConocoPhillips, Equinor, Chevron.

A small group of demonstrators gathered outside a Vatican gate. One held a sign reading "Dear Oil CEOs - Think of Your Children".

Francis, who has made many calls for environmental protection and has clashed over climate change with leaders such as US President Donald Trump, said the ecological crisis "threatens the very future of the human family".

He implicitly criticised those who, like Trump, deny that climate change is mostly caused by human activity.

"For too long we have collectively failed to listen to the fruits of scientific analysis, and doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain," he said. Discussion of climate change and energy transition must be rooted in "the best scientific research available today".

Last year, Trump rejected projections in a report by his own government that climate change will cause severe economic harm to the US economy.

Trump also announced his intent to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris deal to combat climate change, becoming the first country to do so among 200 signatories.

Francis, who wrote an encyclical - a significant document on Church teaching - in 2015 on protection of the environment, and strongly supports the Paris accord, said time was running out to meet its goals.

"Faced with a climate emergency, we must take action accordingly, in order to avoid perpetrating a brutal act of injustice towards the poor and future generations," he said.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Related: 

Church Hosts Summer Camp to Train Grade School Kids to Be Antifa Activists

I'm so old I can remember when disseminating communist propaganda in public schools was frowned upon.

Last Friday afternoon, I was sitting at my computer when I received an email from Peachjar. This is a service used by several school districts near me in the Portland area that sends home digital fliers to parents in lieu of paper fliers to advertise extracurricular activities sponsored by various groups in the community. My son's middle school uses this service, and I receive a few emails a month from them. I've used the service myself to send advertisements for recruiting events for Scouts, and I've received other fliers such as music lessons, sports teams, and the like.

This one, however, was quite different.

There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to start.

The first thing that struck me, before anything else, was the mask-clad, fist-raising elementary school kids in the illustration. Teaching incoming 4th-8th-graders how to riot, become members of antifa, and join a communist revolution seems a bit much—even for Portland, Oregon. Notice the star on the mask and the raised fist. Classic imagery from the USSR, China, and other violent Marxist revolutions in the 20th century.  ...

[James Regan + 1,776]

Quite ironic as the Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc.

Circa 2012.....

Edited June 14, 2019 by James Regan

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ah yes, wonderful idea, injecting religion into both the oil & gas industry and the climate change panic industry.

You post prolifically on climate issues and have made consistent claims showing you have no idea about climate science.

Why not present evidence in support of your ideas rather than continue on baseless rants?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 minutes ago, Red said:

You post prolifically on climate issues and have made consistent claims showing you have no idea about climate science.

Why not present evidence in support of your ideas rather than continue on baseless rants?

All you've ever done is use fallacious "appeal to authority" argument while pretending superiority in subjects you clearly know nothing about. 

CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million. Mankind contributes 2 parts per million to that mass budget annually, the rest is all from natural sources. Refute that

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ah yes, wonderful idea, injecting religion into both the oil & gas industry and the climate change panic industry.

The Pope is religiously shutting down dissent and chastising anyone who dares question the questionable theories behind the Climate Panic Industry and its higher purpose, high Carbon Taxes imposed by Western governments (while China, India, Africa, Asia, and pretty much the majority of the the world's population, apparently get a free pass on Carbon Taxes).

Before I link the article, here is a wonderful quote I ran across this morning from an anonymous comment elsewhere.  Very much applicable to the Pope's attitude here, in my opinion:

 

"Socialism isn’t a end goal.
Totalitarianism is the end goal of socialism.

Permanent socialism doesn’t exist, it’s a means to an end. 
The end: total government control."

 

What I see here is the Pope pushing for totalitarian control, unquestioning obedience to Climate Panic Theology.  And huge Carbon Taxes.  Total Government Control.

 

================================
Pope backs carbon pricing to stem global warming

Vatican City | Pope Francis said on Friday that carbon pricing is "essential" to stem global warming - his clearest statement yet in support of penalising polluters - and appealed to climate change deniers to listen to science.

In an address to energy executives at the end of a two-day meeting, he also called for "open, transparent, science-based and standardised" reporting of climate risk and a "radical energy transition" away from carbon to save the planet.

Carbon pricing, via taxes or emissions trading schemes, is used by many governments to make energy consumers pay for the costs of using the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming, and to spur investment in low-carbon technology.

The Vatican did not release the names of those who attended the closed-door meeting at its Academy of Sciences, a follow-up to one a year ago, but industry sources said the companies represented were believed to be the industry giants Eni, Exxon, Total, Repsol, BP, Sinopec, ConocoPhillips, Equinor, Chevron.

A small group of demonstrators gathered outside a Vatican gate. One held a sign reading "Dear Oil CEOs - Think of Your Children".

Francis, who has made many calls for environmental protection and has clashed over climate change with leaders such as US President Donald Trump, said the ecological crisis "threatens the very future of the human family".

He implicitly criticised those who, like Trump, deny that climate change is mostly caused by human activity.

"For too long we have collectively failed to listen to the fruits of scientific analysis, and doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain," he said. Discussion of climate change and energy transition must be rooted in "the best scientific research available today".

Last year, Trump rejected projections in a report by his own government that climate change will cause severe economic harm to the US economy.

Trump also announced his intent to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris deal to combat climate change, becoming the first country to do so among 200 signatories.

Francis, who wrote an encyclical - a significant document on Church teaching - in 2015 on protection of the environment, and strongly supports the Paris accord, said time was running out to meet its goals.

"Faced with a climate emergency, we must take action accordingly, in order to avoid perpetrating a brutal act of injustice towards the poor and future generations," he said.

Yup, I always look to the Roman Catholics for all things scientific. They've been batting 1000 for two millennia

Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

All you've ever done is use fallacious "appeal to authority" argument while pretending superiority in subjects you clearly know nothing about. 

You too need to do a lot better.  Do you actually know what "appeal to authority" means?

 

8 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million. Mankind contributes 2 parts per million to that mass budget annually, the rest is all from natural sources. Refute that

When you make a claim, cite a reference.  None of it is correct.

However, even if it were, do you know what would make it relevant?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

23 minutes ago, Red said:

You post prolifically on climate issues and have made consistent claims showing you have no idea about climate science.

Why not present evidence in support of your ideas rather than continue on baseless rants?

Explain to me please why in the holy hell the damn Pope keeps attacking the oil industry.  Religion should have nothing to do with the oil industry.

I am pushing back against the hysterical, ever-escalating "Climate Panic Industry" which the media keeps ramming forcefully down Western throats (Africa and Asia get a free pass, apparently).  You seem to be an obstinate cheerleader for the Climate Panic Industry and you continue to berate anyone who disagrees with your Climate Panic Theology.

I wouldn't feel the need to keep commenting about climate panic if the climate panic industry and carbon tax industry would shut up and leave us alone.

You in particular Red, dress up and obfuscate your climate panic religion by routinely trotting out that your beliefs are science, rather than theory.

You repeatedly claim that your climate panic beliefs and theories are "settled" and "science" and cannot be disputed or questioned.

I will repeat the comment that I shared earlier, since you seem to settle for nothing less than absolute and unquestioning subservience to your climate panic religion and theories:

"Socialism isn’t an end goal.
Totalitarianism is the end goal of socialism.

Permanent socialism doesn’t exist, it’s a means to an end. 
The end: total government control."

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

37 minutes ago, Red said:

You post prolifically on climate issues and have made consistent claims showing you have no idea about climate science.

Why not present evidence in support of your ideas rather than continue on baseless rants?

As I mentioned before Ted, you have made the climate change issue your religion. As with ALL religions, it is based on faith, not science.

Nice move getting the Pope involved though. Got to hand it to you....who can argue with the Pope!😂

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As I mentioned before Ted, you have made the climate change issue your religion. As with ALL religions, it is based on faith, not science.

Nice move getting the Pope involved though. Got to hand it to you....who can argue with the Pope!😂

I just did, in my previous comment:

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Explain to me please why in the holy hell the damn Pope keeps attacking the oil industry.  Religion should have nothing to do with the oil industry.

I am pushing back against the hysterical, ever-escalating "Climate Panic Industry" which the media keeps ramming forcefully down Western throats (Africa and Asia get a free pass, apparently). 

 

[Red + 252]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Explain to me please why in the holy hell the damn Pope keeps attacking the oil industry.  Religion should have nothing to do with the oil industry.

I am pushing back against the hysterical, ever-escalating "Climate Panic Industry" which the media keeps ramming forcefully down Western throats (Africa and Asia get a free pass, apparently).  You seem to be an obstinate cheerleader for the Climate Panic Industry and you continue to berate anyone who disagrees with your Climate Panic Theology.

I wouldn't feel the need to keep commenting about climate panic if the climate panic industry and carbon tax industry would shut up and leave us alone.

You in particular Red, dress up and obfuscate your climate panic religion by routinely trotting out that your beliefs are science, rather than theory.

You repeatedly claim that your climate panic beliefs and theories are "settled" and "science" and cannot be disputed or questioned.

I will repeat the comment that I shared earlier, since you seem to settle for nothing less than absolute and unquestioning subservience to your climate panic religion and theories:

"Socialism isn’t an end goal.
Totalitarianism is the end goal of socialism.

Permanent socialism doesn’t exist, it’s a means to an end. 
The end: total government control."

Hyperbole, Tom.

You appear to have no climate science knowledge and make unfounded claims.

Please learn what a "theory" is in science, as your comments will otherwise continue to be "unscientific."

[Red + 252]

13 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As with ALL religions, it is based on faith, not science.

True for religions, so why not show how science is a religion?

Science would show that if religions were true, then we can have only one God.  In simple terms, repeating the experiment always leads to a single God, yet many Gods seem to be followed!

That exercise in logic shows that science cannot be likened to religion.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Red
too many gods

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

44 minutes ago, Red said:

Hyperbole, Tom.

You appear to have no climate science knowledge and make unfounded claims.

Please learn what a "theory" is in science, as your comments will otherwise continue to be "unscientific."

So Ted, are you claiming that climate change due to human intervention is a fact or a theory?

Evolution is still classified as a theory, the origins of oil is still regarded as a theory, the Big Bang is still a theory, the Theory of Relativity... is still a theory!

"In the context of science, a theory is a well established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can be established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."

So, by getting several scientific investigators who agree with you together, and then cherry pick your data....Bingo! You have a theory!

.....right up until that single contrary result.

Your turn.....let the rant begin!

[Red + 252]

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So Ted, are you claiming that climate change due to human intervention is a fact or a theory?

Evolution is still classified as a theory, the origins of oil is still regarded as a theory, the Big Bang is still a theory, the Theory of Relativity... is still a theory!

"In the context of science, a theory is a well established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can be established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."

So, by getting several scientific investigators who agree with you together, and then cherry pick your data....Bingo! You have a theory!

.....right up until that single contrary result.

Your turn.....let the rant begin!

Nothing in science is "definitive," else it is not science.

If you want to make a point about climate science, seeing this thread covers the topic, then please do.  You spend a lot of time saying not much.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I would have sworn that in an earlier rant you told us that the science was settled and not up for discussion, now you tell us that science is not 'definitive' - which is it?

My point, which you constantly seem to miss, is that the science spouted by the Climate Panic crowd is NOT definitive - which you apparently agree with by your comment above.

If it is NOT definitive, and an equally valid, yet dissenting, scientific viewpoint exists (which is also perhaps not 'definitive'), then maybe it would be a good idea NOT to handcuff the people of the world and billions, if not trillions, of dollars on a THEORY which is has NOT been proven and science which is NOT definitive!

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

42 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I would have sworn that in an earlier rant you told us that the science was settled and not up for discussion, now you tell us that science is not 'definitive' - which is it?

My point, which you constantly seem to miss, is that the science spouted by the Climate Panic crowd is NOT definitive - which you apparently agree with by your comment above.

If it is NOT definitive, and an equally valid, yet dissenting, scientific viewpoint exists (which is also perhaps not 'definitive'), then maybe it would be a good idea NOT to handcuff the people of the world and billions, if not trillions, of dollars on a THEORY which is has NOT been proven and science which is NOT definitive!

Here ya go, exchange from an earlier thread:

On 5/27/2019 at 12:46 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

 

The sad fact is, climate change has become a religion, not a scientific debate. If you do not agree with the climate change advocates you are a heretic and must be burned at the stake. I fear we are past the point where a rational debate can take place.

 

 

On 5/27/2019 at 12:52 PM, Red said:

Only to people who think like you.  The science is well and truly settled, but those who refuse to even try and understand it continue to say what you do.

If you are not up to a debate, then do not pretend there is a debate to be had.

 

[Red + 252]

35 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I would have sworn that in an earlier rant you told us that the science was settled and not up for discussion, now you tell us that science is not 'definitive' - which is it?

My point, which you constantly seem to miss, is that the science spouted by the Climate Panic crowd is NOT definitive - which you apparently agree with by your comment above.

If it is NOT definitive, and an equally valid, yet dissenting, scientific viewpoint exists (which is also perhaps not 'definitive'), then maybe it would be a good idea NOT to handcuff the people of the world and billions, if not trillions, of dollars on a THEORY which is has NOT been proven and science which is NOT definitive!

 

You have real comprehension problems:  The physics is proven.  Scientists use laws of physics.

If you have different physics, then provide it.  You are confused because you do not know what you are talking about!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/6358-the-97-fallicy-in-climate-change-science/#comment-55033

 

 

(And yes, the "ignore user" spam filter does not work for moderators on this forum.)

 

[Red + 252]

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And yes, the "ignore user" spam filter does not work for moderators on this forum.)

I realise you do not get it Tom.

Science uses laws of physics.  That is a fact of science - it's settled.

If you think that is wrong, then show how.  I keep asking and you and Fred come up empty handed every time.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I'm confused now... Apparently the PHYSICS is settled, but the SCIENCE is not definitive. How is that possible?

You seem to be using helical logic.

The science is NOT settled although you keep 'playing that tune'. What you actually mean is that the science you choose to believe, to the exclusion of all other science, is settled.

And no, I don't feel the need to post links to that 'other' science as you would simply choose to ignore them.

'Fred' and I do not come up empty handed. You have been provided with fists full of 'opposing' science in the past few weeks but your fallback defense is simply to ignore it.

[start rant here...]

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, Red said:

Nothing in science is "definitive," else it is not science.

If you want to make a point about climate science, seeing this thread covers the topic, then please do.  You spend a lot of time saying not much.

 

3 hours ago, Red said:

I realise you do not get it Tom.

Science uses laws of physics.  That is a fact of science - it's settled.

If you think that is wrong, then show how.  I keep asking and you and Fred come up empty handed every time.

 

Red, trying to debate you is like poking jello, you keep moving around the goal posts and changing your "facts".

Here in this page in this thread, you have stated categorically both that:

1. "Nothing in science is "definitive," else it is not science."

2. "Science uses laws of physics.  That is a fact of science - it's settled."

So, apparently, your working theory about science is that nothing in science is definitive, while conversely, science is settled.

So... which is it?

 

==================================

Here are a few simple, logical observations... I'll wait to see how you twist these observations into pretzel logic and continue to shift the goal posts to something else.

 

A. Climate Change Theory (aka 'AGW religion') that humans are causing global warming claims that the theory is not a theory, but instead claims AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a proven fact that is "settled" and is not open to debate.

B. Since AGW is presented as indisputable fact instead of a theory, it should be incredibly simple for scientists to prove AGW as an indisputable, easily proven fact.  Sorry, vague computer models are not provable scientific facts, computer models are theories, they are extrapolated conclusions based on assumptions.

C. The Laws of Physics are proven.  AGW Climate Change Theory is not proven.  

D. Instead, anyone who questions AGW Climate Change Theory is shouted down, and simply not allowed to question AGW.

E. @Red since you claim that AGW is a proven fact, that AGW is proven science that is settled, the burden of proof rests with you to prove your assertions.

F. The Pope is making the exact same logical mistake as you in declaring that his theories on manmade Climate Change (AGW) are proven scientific facts rather than the theories that they actually are.

 

================================

An analogy, for your consideration. 

● If you are going to present as a proven scientific fact which cannot be questioned, that planet Earth is shaped like a pyramid, then the burden of proof lies with you to prove your case, and not simply shout down those who question that planet Earth may actually not be shaped like a pyramid. 

● While I remain free to question that a pyramid shaped Earth is only a theory, and is not a proven, scientific, settled, fact.

 

● Do you agree that comparing the theory of Pyramid Shaped Planet Earth to the Laws of Physics would be a pretty silly logical assertion? 

● If so, then isn't it also a pretty silly logical assertion to compare the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change to the Laws of Physics?

 

 

 

Am I making any headway here in showing the silliness of presenting a theory as settled fact, as proven science which cannot be questioned?

 

Bueller?     Bueller?     Bueller?

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I'm confused now... Apparently the PHYSICS is settled, but the SCIENCE is not definitive. How is that possible?

You seem to be using helical logic.

The science is NOT settled although you keep 'playing that tune'. What you actually mean is that the science you choose to believe, to the exclusion of all other science, is settled.

And no, I don't feel the need to post links to that 'other' science as you would simply choose to ignore them.

'Fred' and I do not come up empty handed. You have been provided with fists full of 'opposing' science in the past few weeks but your fallback defense is simply to ignore it.

[start rant here...]

Douglas, you beat my comment by about 1 second.  I spent a good 5 minutes writing my comment above, and you replied the instant before I posted.  But we both called out the same logical fallacy by Red in this thread.

[Red + 252]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I'm confused now... Apparently the PHYSICS is settled, but the SCIENCE is not definitive. How is that possible?

You seem to be using helical logic.

The science is NOT settled although you keep 'playing that tune'. What you actually mean is that the science you choose to believe, to the exclusion of all other science, is settled.

And no, I don't feel the need to post links to that 'other' science as you would simply choose to ignore them.

'Fred' and I do not come up empty handed. You have been provided with fists full of 'opposing' science in the past few weeks but your fallback defense is simply to ignore it.

[start rant here...]

You are not up to this, so just quit.

You are not capable of understanding what is at issue, and keep repeating yourself without making any sense.

Exactly what are you claiming?

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So, apparently, your working theory about science is that nothing in science is definitive, while conversely, science is settled.

There may be another explanation to things we come to know.  

If there is, then please offer  it.

I do not know how to make it simpler.

You confuse the fact that we use things like words, laws of physics, and numbers, to explain aspects of science.  They are integral to explaining what is at issue.  In relation to the planet, it receives energy, and it releases energy - in accord with the laws of physics.  If you think that is not the case, then explain why.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Red said:

You are not up to this, so just quit.

You are not capable of understanding what is at issue, and keep repeating yourself without making any sense.

Exactly what are you claiming?

There may be another explanation to things we come to know.  

If there is, then please offer  it.

I do not know how to make it simpler.

You confuse the fact that we use things like words, laws of physics, and numbers, to explain aspects of science.  They are integral to explaining what is at issue.  In relation to the planet, it receives energy, and it releases energy - in accord with the laws of physics.  If you think that is not the case, then explain why.

 

Jello response again.  You haven't actually addressed the points I laid out.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove your assertions.  You refuse.

I throw in the towel, this is a waste of my time.

[Red + 252]

30 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Jello response again.  You haven't actually addressed the points I laid out.

The burden of proof rests with you to prove your assertions.  You refuse.

I throw in the towel, this is a waste of my time.

Your points make no sense to me, so how can I address them? 

You then suggest the burden of proof is on me, when there is no science I am aware of that supports an alternative. 

It is clear your understanding of science is not sound.