Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Catholic Church Lists Climate Change As No. 1 Pro-life Issue >

Catholic Church Lists Climate Change As No. 1 Pro-life Issue

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Catholic Church Lists Climate Change As No. 1 Pro-life Issue

Old 06-13-2014, 06:23 PM
  #11  
Nontypical Buck
 
FlDeerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DeFuniak Spr.Florida
Posts: 4,329
Default

90% makes since if MSNBA and left wing rags are your only news you see.One day after arising from the basement he(Stormy)may,may see the light.
FlDeerman is offline  
Old 06-14-2014, 05:22 AM
  #12  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,294
Default

last I heard about 90% agree. I'm not fully convinced myself, but the weather has been pretty wacky. Is it natural nature? not what they are saying. Can you do anything you want to the atmosphere and planet without any change? no I don't think so.
It's 97% of all scientists in that field who think it's being caused by humans.

There's only one fair way to have a discussion on this

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
And here's an article in Forbes about a peer-reviewed survey suggesting that a majority of scientist and engineers do NOT support AGW.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

There are more articles, but you get the idea.

Of course the mainstream media never cites these findings, only the Chicken Little prattlings.
That survey is worthless. "Peer reviewed survey." LOL They asked geoscientists and engineers in the oil and gas industry in Alberta Canada. Ridiculous.

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

Edit: I took a look at it. It really isn't even about climate change. It's more about people. Not surprising that Forbes would turn it into something more. From the abstract of the paper:

"Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association. "

As is, the textbooks that universities and community colleges have in earth science, astronomy, biology, etc. commonly have a section on the subject saying that the evidence points to climate change caused by humans.

Last edited by BigBuck22; 06-14-2014 at 05:45 AM.
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 06-14-2014, 05:45 AM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
 
FlDeerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DeFuniak Spr.Florida
Posts: 4,329
Default

Really,prove it?
FlDeerman is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 06:02 AM
  #14  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

BB illustrates the unwillingness of these true believers to confront reality in his post. He focuses on the Forbes article, which was a pretty good one, an ignores everything else including the fact that a search of the internet will turn up a whole lot more. My basic goal was to refute the claim that there is an over whelming consensus among scientists in support of AGW. This is simply not true. But the media tends to ignore the doubters. There nothing sensational in saying, "well, the data isn't convincing."

We can't rule out the possibility that our human activities are responsible for an increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere that can't be explained by natural causes.

But here are some things to consider.

1- CO2 accounts for a little less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.

2- It's true that CO2 levels in the atmosphere seem to be the highest in the last 800,000 years at about 380 ppm. But if you checked out the data I posted in another thread, you can see that the level has fluctuated wildly over that time span and was measured in one period at 300 ppm, about 400,000 years ago.

3- These measurements don't go back beyond 800,000 years. We have no current knowledge of the range of fluctuation prior to that.

4- Given the natural fluctuations, we do not know how much of the current 380 ppm of CO2 for which we humans are responsible, if any of it.

5- AGW proponents ignore any natural evidence of extreme climate change for which we humans were obviously not responsible. There was a period in prehistory when the Sahara was, due to substantial and unusual rainfall, open to agriculture. A glacier started to develop over a large part of North America about 90,000 years ago, increased, and then about 12,000 years ago finally was gone.

6- Even at 380 ppm, the catastrophic effects predicted by the AGW believers are nowhere to be seen.

7- And the AGW believers make fools of themselves by attempting to ascribe current, unusual but not unknown, weather events, like the frigid winter here in parts of the U.S. to "global warming. This kind of nonsense makes their case look even weaker.
sachiko is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 06:44 AM
  #15  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by stormyday395 View Post
not taking a stance either way, but suppose prolifer's are wrong about climate change and the scientist are right. Wouldn't that be worse than abortion if it killed millions. They have a point.
you have an insane logic.

In what world does killing off millions of the most helpless and innocent protect life?

If the globe does burn and it's predicted to it will be because people are infected with this insane logic.
nodog is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 07:32 AM
  #16  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 979
Default

you have an insane logic.
seems to me pretty straight forward logic

In what world does killing off millions of the most helpless and innocent protect life?
Never said it did, just comparing logic. How some 'mostly pro-life supporters' can't make the comparison I can't fathom. To take a pro-life stance, and then to ignore 97% of scientist, could kill millions, hence the logic.
stormyday395 is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 08:30 AM
  #17  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,361
Default

Many of us believe the earth will end someday. Scientists have predicted that the sun, which keeps our planet in the green zone, will die off in billions of years. So if science can be believed there is that benchmark to the end. In addition there is a possibility the end could come by an asteroid strike causing a global extinction. There is another possibility if religion plays into it.... that the day of reckoning will occur and God will make it all go away. Everything has a carrying capacity and I often wonder if the end could come because we outgrow our planet. People need food and fresh water to exist. Our planet has no problem producing both with the help of mankind. The planet exists in a natural balance with O2 being produced by plants. Mankind is pretty good at deforesting to provide more agriculture land and building supplies. As the population grows there is little in nature to regulate it. Centuries ago disease could wipe out whole portions of the planet but with today’s technology and knowledge much of that can be eliminated. So my question…in a few hundred years how many people will be living on the earth and is there such a thing as spoiling the sandbox? When living organisms overpopulate nature has always acted to rebalance. Could man made air, land, sea pollution or lack of water cause a rapid change leading to a point of no return for the planet?
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 11:49 AM
  #18  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 979
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
Many of us believe the earth will end someday. Scientists have predicted that the sun, which keeps our planet in the green zone, will die off in billions of years. So if science can be believed there is that benchmark to the end. In addition there is a possibility the end could come by an asteroid strike causing a global extinction. There is another possibility if religion plays into it.... that the day of reckoning will occur and God will make it all go away. Everything has a carrying capacity and I often wonder if the end could come because we outgrow our planet. People need food and fresh water to exist. Our planet has no problem producing both with the help of mankind. The planet exists in a natural balance with O2 being produced by plants. Mankind is pretty good at deforesting to provide more agriculture land and building supplies. As the population grows there is little in nature to regulate it. Centuries ago disease could wipe out whole portions of the planet but with today’s technology and knowledge much of that can be eliminated. So my question…in a few hundred years how many people will be living on the earth and is there such a thing as spoiling the sandbox? When living organisms overpopulate nature has always acted to rebalance. Could man made air, land, sea pollution or lack of water cause a rapid change leading to a point of no return for the planet?
these are good questions
stormyday395 is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 01:42 PM
  #19  
Typical Buck
 
ckell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: North Texas
Posts: 751
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
Many of us believe the earth will end someday. Scientists have predicted that the sun, which keeps our planet in the green zone, will die off in billions of years. So if science can be believed there is that benchmark to the end. In addition there is a possibility the end could come by an asteroid strike causing a global extinction. There is another possibility if religion plays into it.... that the day of reckoning will occur and God will make it all go away. Everything has a carrying capacity and I often wonder if the end could come because we outgrow our planet. People need food and fresh water to exist. Our planet has no problem producing both with the help of mankind. The planet exists in a natural balance with O2 being produced by plants. Mankind is pretty good at deforesting to provide more agriculture land and building supplies. As the population grows there is little in nature to regulate it. Centuries ago disease could wipe out whole portions of the planet but with today’s technology and knowledge much of that can be eliminated. So my question…in a few hundred years how many people will be living on the earth and is there such a thing as spoiling the sandbox? When living organisms overpopulate nature has always acted to rebalance. Could man made air, land, sea pollution or lack of water cause a rapid change leading to a point of no return for the planet?
I have often wandered about those same things. how many more people can the planet support. And nature has always controlled the population of all species, as resources dwindled nature intervened, with certain diseases, slowing the population growth and insuring the healthiest most adaptable continued.
ckell is offline  
Old 06-15-2014, 02:53 PM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 2,661
Default

and they have been around another planet just like earth, that was the same age, and was uninhabited by humans so they know that this global warming is manmade and not just the planet naturaly ageing, correct? was always taught in school about natural climate change, you know the dinasaurs, then the ice age killed them. so whats fact and whats theory? a theory is BS till its proven a fact
RR
Ridge Runner is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.