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

As expected, another reply consisting of less than linear logic, which failed to address a single concern regarding theories, physics or science just a stab at confusing the issues by claiming semantics somehow impact science and the results of the 'scientific method'.

Red says that Tom's grasp of science is unsound, which is again a theory on Red's part with no proof of his assumption.

My THEORY is that Red should go back to surfing the internet in his mother's basement and leave logical debate to the adults.

[Begin SERIOUS RANT here...]

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My THEORY is that Red should go back to surfing the internet in his mother's basement and leave logical debate to the adults.

You cannot offer basic science to support your claims. 

What am I to debate?  The fact you cannot understand simple concepts?

Why are you posting repeats of nothing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red said:

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.

So, your "scientific proof" is that since you have not found an alternative theory to Anthropogenic Global Warming, then Anthropogenic Global Warming is considered to be undisputed, proven, settled, scientific fact.

Your ideas and assumptions about actual science and actual facts are clearly not compatible with reality.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So, your "scientific proof" is that since you have not found an alternative theory to Anthropogenic Global Warming, then Anthropogenic Global Warming is considered to be undisputed, proven, settled, scientific fact.

Your ideas and assumptions about actual science and actual facts are clearly not compatible with reality.

That's gibberish Tom.

You offer nothing and Bucky is equally bereft.

You can check reality in a lot of charts, and they point to something that you are not able to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Three men go into a bar.....

And the barmaid says, "you guys will all have to order just one kind of beer, new Bar Rules, so let me know when you decide"

Now you know how barfights get started!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

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

Well, not quite definitive enough.  The end goal is actually "total control" by one specific societal faction.  That faction wants to put everyone else under their boot heel. Then they get to run your life - and put you in the Gulag if you disagree. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And the barmaid says, "you guys will all have to order just one kind of beer, new Bar Rules, so let me know when you decide"

Now you know how barfights get started!

Tom orders a Tiger as he resides in Malaysia. Doug doesn't drink, so declines the beer and Red says, "Do you realize the carbon footprint from a single beer and the resulting belching?"...and walks out in a huff.

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tom orders a Tiger as he resides in Malaysia. Doug doesn't drink, so declines the beer and Red says, "Do you realize the carbon footprint from a single beer and the resulting belching?"...and walks out in a huff.

Well, at least you still have a sense of humor after all that, I'll give you that!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tom orders a Tiger as he resides in Malaysia. Doug doesn't drink, so declines the beer and Red says, "Do you realize the carbon footprint from a single beer and the resulting belching?"...and walks out in a huff.

Since I haven't had a drop of alcohol this year, I'd have an iced coffee instead.

But I can belch on demand, repeatedly.  Old skillset from childhood.  Guess that makes me a CO2 enabler  < insert evil chortle here > ...   So now I'm wondering how much CO2 is emitted in a sustained belch. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red said:

That's gibberish Tom.

You offer nothing and Bucky is equally bereft.

You can check reality in a lot of charts, and they point to something that you are not able to understand.

C'mon now, Red, you are getting carried away.  Let's leave these guys alone.  Time for a pleasant weekend! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Since I haven't had a drop of alcohol this year,

Gotta break that fast there, Tom.  How about a nice bottle of Chianti!  Mellows me right out.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Gotta break that fast there, Tom.  How about a nice bottle of Chianti!  Mellows me right out.....

Here you go Tom, goes well with someone’s liver uuuummmm

E5E6EA96-E308-4BA8-984E-D5B9AD080E1B.jpeg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

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

"totalitarian control, unquestioning obedience... total government control" neatly summarizes the papacy.  I was raised Catholic and learned all about papal abuses, the protestant reformation, etc.  This kind of power grab is exactly what I would expect from a pope. 

More to the point, the Reformation loosened the papacy's grip on Northern Europe and North America.  Climate change taxes will benefit dominantly Catholic nations at the expense of dominantly protestant/agnostic nations.  Of course the pope wants them.

It's the same with mass migration: if you can't convert the protestants & agnostics, replace them with obedient Catholics!  The Catholic Church will be happy to see tithes increase as obedient followers leech off protestant/agnostic prosperity.  Unfortunately for everyone, the leeching will eventually drive these nations into poverty - just like it did to the dominantly Catholic nations those immigrants came from. 

This is why we can't have nice things. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red said:

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 @Douglas Buckland

Engineer here.  There's a massive difference between understanding fundamental physics and incorporating tens of thousands of factors into an accurate model.  Climate "scientists" fail to make this painfully obvious distinction. 

The fundamental physics of radiation is quite settled; no one denies that. 

Climate models, on the other hand, are a three ring s***-show of programming errors, missing data, adulterated data, failure to accurately model past climates, incorrect predictions, and political influence.  In my entire life, I have never seen a greater display of flaming incompetence, corruption, wishful thinking, and religious zealotry.  Climate "scientists" are so warped in their thinking, I wouldn't trust them to teach Middle School.  The idea that they can accurately model the earth - one of the largest, most complex, and poorly understood systems humanity has studied - is absurd. 

The fact that climate "scientists" can't see their own limitations speaks volumes about their incompetence.  They're the official poster children of the Dunning-Kruger effect

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

@Tom Kirkman @Douglas Buckland

Engineer here.  There's a massive difference between understanding fundamental physics and incorporating tens of thousands of factors into an accurate model.  Climate "scientists" fail to make this painfully obvious distinction. 

The fundamental physics of radiation is quite settled; no one denies that. 

Climate models, on the other hand, are a three ring s***-show of programming errors, missing data, adulterated data, failure to accurately model past climates, incorrect predictions, and political influence.  In my entire life, I have never seen a greater display of flaming incompetence, corruption, wishful thinking, and religious zealotry.  Climate "scientists" are so warped in their thinking, I wouldn't trust them to teach Middle School.  The idea that they can accurately model the earth - one of the largest, most complex, and poorly understood systems humanity has studied - is absurd. 

The fact that climate "scientists" can't see their own limitations speaks volumes about their incompetence.  They're the official poster children of the Dunning-Kruger effect

And that's a wrap! Miller time!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 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 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.

The pope is infalable. Therefore the climate change threat must be real. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

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 have elevated their status too much, they are conjecture dressed up as hypothesis and no science to back them up.  Studies and statistical analysis are not science, they are at best pseudo science.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, It's Wind and Solar said:

The pope is infalable. Therefore the climate change threat must be real. 

According to their most important book Jesus was supposed to return 2000 years ago and they are still expecting him anyday now.  I don't give the pope much credibility for rational thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Red said:

 

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.

 

The totality of the energy received and transmitted by the earth is at issue here and the problem for the  climate religionists is that they cannot properly quantify even the human component of that.  In fact the human component is actually really that which is already here just rearranged after a few reactions occur.  Said reactions occur regularly without human involvement as well and produce a tremendous amount more of the same reactants but climate religionists cannot figure that out. 

Scientists don't know how the earth works or why it works, there is no theory of life on the earth that is quantifiable and verifiable.  There is also no theory of energy transmission to and from the earth between the sun and the other planets.

Climate religionists blithely assume that all new CO2 is human generated and all human generated CO2 fails to be reintegrated by the earth's own natural system that we are part of.  The earth properly deals with two orders of magnitude more of these reactants that it produces at the same time, funny that.  Why is human generated CO2 treated any differently than what the earth generates on it's own?  It's not, if you are describing a scientific system.  The retort is that the system was in balance before we started adding CO2 and that the earth can't handle our puny additions. 

Now how stupid is that?  Here is a complicated system that works without the scientists being able to explain it and yet climate religionists know that it was in balance before humans started emitting CO2 and now it's out of balance as a result.  Sure, show us the measurements and relate them directly to human behavior, thus far the climate religionsists have failed to do that in any way that is definitive or conclusive.  Models of stuff you can't explain to begin with don't count as science, only speculation and conjecture.  Hence I dub them climate religionists.

Edited by wrs
  • Great Response! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Red said:

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

 

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?

I've decided you're a bot, programmed like the Eliza algorithm. You keep turning every phrase back into a question to simulate intelligence. Eliza fooled some people

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wrs said:

The totality of the energy received and transmitted by the earth is at issue here and the problem for the  climate religionists is that they cannot properly quantify even the human component of that.  In fact the human component is actually really that which is already here just rearranged after a few reactions occur.  Said reactions occur regularly without human involvement as well and produce a tremendous amount more of the same reactants but climate religionists cannot figure that out. 

Scientists don't know how the earth works or why it works, there is no theory of life on the earth that is quantifiable and verifiable.  There is also no theory of energy transmission to and from the earth between the sun and the other planets.

Climate religionists blithely assume that all new CO2 is human generated and all human generated CO2 fails to be reintegrated by the earth's own natural system that we are part of.  The earth properly deals with two orders of magnitude more of these reactants that it produces at the same time, funny that.  Why is human generated CO2 treated any differently than what the earth generates on it's own?  It's not, if you are describing a scientific system.  The retort is that the system was in balance before we started adding CO2 and that the earth can't handle our puny additions. 

Now how stupid is that?  Here is a complicated system that works without the scientists being able to explain it and yet climate religionists know that it was in balance before humans started emitting CO2 and now it's out of balance as a result.  Sure, show us the measurements and relate them directly to human behavior, thus far the climate religionsists have failed to do that in any way that is definitive or conclusive.  Models of stuff you can't explain to begin with don't count as science, only speculation and conjecture.  Hence I dub them climate religionists.

In reality the world and our eco system is a fluke a freak of nature a one off, try and do analysis of a fluke it’s impossible! 

We are a one off (at this point in time) in order to do the science you need case studies we are a case study.

Religionist is a good word for the climate change commandos, I’m a Climagnost!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

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." 

On the contrary, a scientific theory is defined differently:

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

From Scientific American:

2. Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

A theory is more than a hypothesis, which is just an idea that someone has.  That seems to be the way Tom Kirkman and Douglas Buckland are using the terms.  For instance, Douglas Buckland said the Theory of Relativity is still (i.e. only just) a theory.  The theory of relativity, theory of gravity and the Pythagorean theorem act more like laws, given how much we know now.  No one, and I mean no one, really disputes these things, as they have consistently been borne out with evidence.  The same is true of weather and climate models, although there is some variation in the models.  For instance, while we may not be perfect at predicting the weather, we have gotten really, really good at predicting the formation of tornadoes and the directions of hurricanes / cyclones.  This has saved countless numbers of lives, including my own, with the threat of tornadoes.  There is as much as one hour warning for tornadoes locally; and several days for hurricanes.

Climate models are weather systems observed or predicted over long terms.  And we are getting better at predicting them all the time.  They are still based on theories, but really good ones that are highly predictable and accurate.  We can measure the changes over time better and better.  That is why 97% of climate scientists (probably more than that now) agree with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory.  We have a lot of data to back it up: satellites, weather balloons, temperature gauges and observations of receding glaciers, among other things.  Ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius (with some variation due to impurities in the water).  A glacier is simply a river of ice.  As time has gone on, the temperature is rising above freezing more days per year consistently (with some variation), causing the glaciers to turn into water.  But the trend is clear.  The next question is "why?"  From that, we have bored ice core samples from the arctic and antarctic regions, studied plants and soil, and studied animal and human migration patterns.

These scientists have earnestly and honestly tried to answer these questions.  They have formulated theories based on the available data, and no one, and I mean no one, has come up with a viable, testable idea that contradicts the models that the climate scientists have put forth.

The only people who have screamed like banshees over these theories are people in the oil industry.  But it is like what Upton Sinclair famously said: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."  The oil companies have seized upon any disagreement in the climate science community, no matter how small.  They have hired their own "climate science experts" to dispute everything.  Why?  Because they stand to lose fortunes.  However, the evidence is overwhelming.

I was going to write about the different standards of proof in court proceedings (preponderance of the evidence vs. clear and convincing vs. beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the standard being applied here requiring that climate scientists prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt.  That should not be the standard.  But I was afraid the point would be lost.  The point being that climate scientists have proven the case by a clear and convincing standard, such that enough evidence has been established to require a change in public policy in response to the known threat posed by the coming climate warming.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours 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.

 

7 hours ago, Red said:

What am I to debate?  The fact you cannot understand simple concepts?

 

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Climate models, on the other hand, are a three ring s***-show of programming errors, missing data, adulterated data, failure to accurately model past climates, incorrect predictions, and political influence. 

Ahheemmm........ Dear Commies (Friends of community)..... I understand that Mr. Tom Kirkman is not asking me but...... there is a reason for me to drop in a few lines.....

Once upon a time......... there was a saying " When Science can not explain the event (or in our case to stop the dispute)........ Gods and religions come into play............ "               

Just believe............ for your salvation. :o:|

So... now we know why Pope is involved......... -_-

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites