Morality and climate change

[Old Rocks]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

 

[eagle1462010]

So what.......................I could care less.....................it doesn't change the argument that is ongoing.............on so many threads that I've lost count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The more people discussing the issue, the better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what.......................I could care less.....................it doesn't change the argument that is ongoing.............on so many threads that I've lost count.

You and others on the right may not care but that doesn't change the fact that human activity is adversely effecting the biosphere.

You can call it whatever you want, global warming, climate change – it doesn't matter; what does matter is that humans continuing to poison the biosphere is unsustainable and unsupported, where it's naïve and foolish to believe we can continue the poisoning without causing long-term harm to the environment, indeed, irreparable, long-term harm has already occurred.

 

[Muhammed]

The more people discussing the issue, the better.

What issue?

 

[amrchaos]

You know

Once the clergy and leftist unite, there is no stopping them.

 

[onefour1]

John L. Casey, a foremost authority on climate change says the globalist politicians and globalist scientists are WRONG.

 

[onefour1]

This Climate change agenda is in lock step with UN Agenda 21. It is completely immoral!!!

 

[BreezeWood]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change.

.
where have they been ?


- the unchecked loss of natural habitat is the moral imperative above all others ....

.

 

[waltky]

Yea, already Uncle Ferd has to take a siesta inna afternoon ever' day...

Will climate change make the world lazier?
Oct. 23, 2015 - Economic output and global incomes could shrink anywhere from 20 to 40 percent, depending on how well governments are able to mitigate global warming.

Sometimes it's just too hot to do anything, let alone work. If climate change continues, that might be the case more often. Researchers think rising temperatures could diminish global economic productivity -- not because people will stop working altogether, but because productivity slows down when the mercury rises. In a new study published in Nature, scientists from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley looked at global warming through a macroeconomic lens. Several studies have tallied up the logistical and infrastructure costs of climate change -- the price tag for city-destroying floods and farm-killing droughts. But Stanford scientists looked at how rising temperatures will affect people's productivity.

New research suggests rising temperatures could diminish economic productivity.​

This isn't necessarily uncharted territory. Companies looking to get an edge in the hyper-productive world of modern commerce have funded numerous studies on the ideal office temperature. The consensus is 70 degrees Fahrenheit. When it's too hot or too cold, workers become less efficient and prone to error. "Many very careful studies show clearly that high temperatures are bad for things like agriculture and labor productivity, even in rich countries," study co-author Marshall Burke, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford, explained in a press release. "While these relationships showed up again and again in the micro data -- for example, when looking at agricultural fields or manufacturing plants -- they were not showing up in the existing macro-level studies, and we wanted to understand why."

To bridge the gap, Burke and his fellow researchers took a wide-angle view, compiling and analyzing temperature averages and economic output data from 166 countries between 1960 and 2010. They discovered a bell curve. Rising temperature encourages productivity up to a threshold, an annual average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit. Anything hotter and productivity begins to slack and drop off. "Our macro-level results lined up nicely with the micro-level studies," said co-lead author Solomon Hsiang, a public policy professor at Berkeley.

MORE

 

[zaangalewa]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

The current climate change is manmade - so everyone is called to do something.

 

[zaangalewa]

John L. Casey, a foremost authority on climate change says the globalist politicians and globalist scientists are WRONG.

Who is this man? What's his qualification? The current climate change is without any doubt manmade (>=95%). Every serios and independent scientist worldwide says so.

 

[Old Rocks]

John L. Casey, a foremost authority on climate change says the globalist politicians and globalist scientists are WRONG.

John L. Casey is not a foremost authority on climate change. In fact, he is no authority at all in that discipline.

Seeing the environmental forest: John L. Casey and climate denial


Casey is a retired engineer, having worked on the space shuttle at NASA for most of his career. Post-retirement, he now describes himself as a climatologist, claiming on his website that he is "one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts" without providing any evidence that he has any coursework or research experience in climate science. Luongo parroted Casey's line, word-for-word, without attribution, in his "newsletter."

So, what is Casey's claim to fame in the realm of climatology? That the sun exhibits cycles of activity. No. Really. That is Casey's main thesis from his 2008 paper "The existence of relational cycles of solar activity on a multidecadal to centennial scale as significant models of climate change on Earth." Casey makes the claim that his paper was peer-reviewed but a quick search for the paper title and author on Google Scholar shows that it has never been published anywhere other than his own website. A quick review of his website shows that this is the only formal paper Casey has written on the subject beyond various "Global Climate Status Reports" available for $8.95. Looking at the free summaries of his status reports shows that they're largely a continuation of claims made in his 2008 paper.

Casey used a C14 calibration curve from Reimer et al. (2004) as a proxy for solar activity, analyzed it for cycles in an unspecified way, then eyeballed the graph to find the local minima that matched the cycles he found. He then eyeballed graphs of HadCRUT3 (AD 1860-2000, his Figure 5), continental US temperatures from NOAA (AD 1895-2006, Figure 6), and mainland Chinese temperatures from 1 BC to AD 2000 (Casey's Figure 7, Yang et al. 2002) for local minima. He then presented the results of that "analysis" in Table 2 on page 5. Here is his table:

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

Don't think climate change is a moral issue. Climate change denial is though. If you're trying to convince people it's either not happening, or not so serious, you're endangering people. But telling people the obvious like don't pollute isn't a moral issue so much as 'no duh'

 

[Mudda]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

The Pope should clean up the pedophiles in his own backyard first, before giving other people advice.

 

[zaangalewa]

John L. Casey, a foremost authority on climate change says the globalist politicians and globalist scientists are WRONG.

John L. Casey is not a foremost authority on climate change. In fact, he is no authority at all in that discipline.

?

Seeing the environmental forest: John L. Casey and climate denial

Casey is a retired engineer, having worked on the space shuttle at NASA for most of his career. Post-retirement, he now describes himself as a climatologist, claiming on his website that he is "one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts" without providing any evidence that he has any coursework or research experience in climate science. Luongo parroted Casey's line, word-for-word, without attribution, in his "newsletter."

A machine builder not a meteorologist?

So, what is Casey's claim to fame in the realm of climatology? That the sun exhibits cycles of activity. No. Really. That is Casey's main thesis from his 2008 paper "The existence of relational cycles of solar activity on a multidecadal to centennial scale as significant models of climate change on Earth." Casey makes the claim that his paper was peer-reviewed but a quick search for the paper title and author on Google Scholar shows that it has never been published anywhere other than his own website. A quick review of his website shows that this is the only formal paper Casey has written on the subject beyond various "Global Climate Status Reports" available for $8.95. Looking at the free summaries of his status reports shows that they're largely a continuation of claims made in his 2008 paper.

Casey used a C14 calibration curve from Reimer et al. (2004) as a proxy for solar activity, analyzed it for cycles in an unspecified way, then eyeballed the graph to find the local minima that matched the cycles he found. He then eyeballed graphs of HadCRUT3 (AD 1860-2000, his Figure 5), continental US temperatures from NOAA (AD 1895-2006, Figure 6), and mainland Chinese temperatures from 1 BC to AD 2000 (Casey's Figure 7, Yang et al. 2002) for local minima. He then presented the results of that "analysis" in Table 2 on page 5. Here is his table:

Thanks for this Information. I fear one of the greatest problems on our planet is it that politicians and economists say what the people like to hear and what will bring them money. And everyone says what the man likes to hear who pays him money. One problem is it that we are not any longer able to change the climate change - it will come now - so we have to minimize the speed, the amplitude and the bad results of this change.

 

[westwall]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

it is proper that you placed this in Religion. Morality is the the purview of religion, not science. So good job! That being said, if there truly was a impending disaster don't you think there would be draconian pollution controls being talked about instead of measly tax charges? I mean if DOOM is around the corner I would think there would be a concerted effort to actually CONTROL the pollution...but no. They say you can still pollute, you just have to pay ME for the privilege.

Something fishy here don't ya think?

 

[onefour1]

Global Warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fiction (Natural New article)

(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.

Here's the proof of the climate change fraud
Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2
Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?

Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.

Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

Reforestation is the answer
This brings us to the simple, obvious solution to all this. If you want to cool the planet, focus on reforestation efforts. If you want to retain moisture and keep your soils alive, you need diverse plant-based ecosystems, not clear-cut fields running monoculture operations.

Forests act like sponges that soak up rainwater, and then they turn around and slowly release that water back into the air, "moisturizing" the atmosphere and keeping humidity levels high enough to support other nearby grasses, shrubs and plants. When you clear-cut forests -- as has been done all across the world to make room for mechanized agriculture -- you effectively raise temperatures by eliminating nature's plant-based water retention and cooling systems.

Industrialized farming, in other words, has already been historically shown to radically increase continental temperatures and "warm" the region. So why isn't the White House warning the world about the dangers of industrialized agriculture?

The answer: Because it doesn't accomplish anything that's politically important to this administration. It's far more important to use the false panic of global warming to shut down clean coal power plants (U.S. coal plants are FAR cleaner than China's) and drive the population into a state of subservient obedience through doomsday scare tactics.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming
As an environmentalist, I'm always concerned about pollutants and emissions, especially heavy metals being dumped into the atmosphere. But I've also learned over the years that almost everything the federal government aggressively promotes to the public is a blatant lie. Rarely does anything resembling the truth ever come out of Washington D.C.

These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.

These are the same government people who build massive networks of underground bunkers and caves in complete secrecy while publicly claiming preppers are conspiracy theorists. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.

If you think this same government is telling you the truth about global warming, you probably need to have your head examined. But not by a government-licensed psychiatrist, or she'll dose your head full of psychiatric medications that cause you to lose so much of your cognitive function, you'll actually start to believe CNN's broadcasts.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html#ixzz3pcubKdFF

 

[zaangalewa]

Global Warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fiction (Natural New article)

(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.

Here's the proof of the climate change fraud
Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:

The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax
What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.

Short-sighted agricultural practices cause more global warming than CO2
Seeing these charts, you might wonder how the extremely high temperatures of the 1930's came about. Were we releasing too much CO2 by burning fossil fuels?

Nope. That entire episode of massive warming and drought was caused by conventional agricultural practices that clear-cut forests, poisoned the soils with chemicals and plowed the top soil away. Lacking trees to retain moisture, areas that were once thriving plains, grasslands and forests turned to desert. Suddenly, the cooling effects of moisture transpiration from healthy plant ecosystems was lost, causing extreme temperatures and deadly drought.

Shortsighted agricultural practices, in other words, really did cause "warming," while a restoration of a more natural ecosystem reversed the trend and cooled the region.

Reforestation is the answer
This brings us to the simple, obvious solution to all this. If you want to cool the planet, focus on reforestation efforts. If you want to retain moisture and keep your soils alive, you need diverse plant-based ecosystems, not clear-cut fields running monoculture operations.

Forests act like sponges that soak up rainwater, and then they turn around and slowly release that water back into the air, "moisturizing" the atmosphere and keeping humidity levels high enough to support other nearby grasses, shrubs and plants. When you clear-cut forests -- as has been done all across the world to make room for mechanized agriculture -- you effectively raise temperatures by eliminating nature's plant-based water retention and cooling systems.

Industrialized farming, in other words, has already been historically shown to radically increase continental temperatures and "warm" the region. So why isn't the White House warning the world about the dangers of industrialized agriculture?

The answer: Because it doesn't accomplish anything that's politically important to this administration. It's far more important to use the false panic of global warming to shut down clean coal power plants (U.S. coal plants are FAR cleaner than China's) and drive the population into a state of subservient obedience through doomsday scare tactics.

Now we conclusively know the government is lying about global warming
As an environmentalist, I'm always concerned about pollutants and emissions, especially heavy metals being dumped into the atmosphere. But I've also learned over the years that almost everything the federal government aggressively promotes to the public is a blatant lie. Rarely does anything resembling the truth ever come out of Washington D.C.

These people are experts at lying with bad science, hiding their deceptions behind the cover of "scientific thinking" and making outlandish claims such as saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. Remember, the people who are telling you that burning fossils fuels is causing runaway global warming are the very same people who also claim mercury in vaccines is safe to inject in unlimited quantities, toxins in GMOs are safe to eat, chemotherapy works great for cancer patients and that there's no such thing as any food or nutrient that prevents disease.

These are the same government people who build massive networks of underground bunkers and caves in complete secrecy while publicly claiming preppers are conspiracy theorists. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.

If you think this same government is telling you the truth about global warming, you probably need to have your head examined. But not by a government-licensed psychiatrist, or she'll dose your head full of psychiatric medications that cause you to lose so much of your cognitive function, you'll actually start to believe CNN's broadcasts.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html#ixzz3pcubKdFF

What you say here is worth nothing. I fear all this "informations" are under the spirit of one of the new modern ideologies what likes say to everyone: you are not able to see the real problems - you are not able to change anything - you are not able to change yourselve - you don't have the ability to think on your own - you don't have any power, you don't have any might - so: don't do anything.

The more simple fact is the tragedy: The USA and China are the main reason why the world seems to be paralyzed and with a very low level of progress in the questions of a decentral use of alternative energies and other important steps to protect all and every life on our planet.

 

[zaangalewa]

Pope Francis has put a moral face on the issue of climate change. Given what we will see this year, I expect before the year is out that other denominational leaders will join him.

The Pope should clean up the pedophiles in his own backyard first, before giving other people advice.

Every 'normal' man in the western world is 25-36 times more dangerous in questions of pedophilia than a priest of the catholic church. What you said here has by the way nothing to do with logic. It shows only that you hate Catholics and you don't like to think about the problem.