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 06-15-2014, 06:07 PM
  #21  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
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?
Yes and no. Yes it will be mans fault, no it won't be from meddling with it, but from neglect due to being obsessed with lust and desire. Picture New Orleans during Katrina on a global scale.
nodog is offline  
Old 06-16-2014, 02:59 AM
  #22  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,371
Default

I don't see NOLA as being brought down by lust and desire during Katrina. True enough all that happens on Bourbon Street but the demise of that town was caused mostly by poor planning, denial and corruption.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 06-16-2014, 04:08 AM
  #23  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

Worries about a doomsday scenario brought about by over population are probably misplaced. The population of most first world countries is actually declining. 40% of the population of Japan is now over 60. We see the same effect in South Korea, where the fertility rate for women has fallen to 1.21. It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 per woman to maintain population. China is now amending their one-child policy. They face another problem. There is not a sufficient number of females for all the young men who survived the one-child policy. This will obviously deter population increase there.

Our impending social security crisis in this country is simply due to the baby-boomers not reproducing at the same rate as their parents. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it will require adjusting to a new set of conditions, because under the current rules, social security is not sustainable. It won't be dropped or drastically changed I believe. But I suspect people my age will be paying a higher tax rate. And eligibility for benefits will likely become needs based.

Population growth in the third world will become a problem, especially as the first world nations feel an obligation to alleviate suffering in those countries partially due to population needs exceeding available resources. Exporting jobs to these countries can be beneficial ultimately because increasing living standards seems to lead to population declines. As the people assembling computers in those thatched huts rise in income level, they will be moving into an apartment, buying a Kia and deciding to limit the size of their families.

I'm optimistic that we will be able to solve these problems with which we'll be faced. But it will require honest assessment of the facts as opposed to scare tactics by people with a political agenda.
sachiko is offline  
Old 06-16-2014, 01:13 PM
  #24  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
I don't see NOLA as being brought down by lust and desire during Katrina. True enough all that happens on Bourbon Street but the demise of that town was caused mostly by poor planning, denial and corruption.
exactly my point. What were they doing instead of planning...
nodog is offline  
Old 06-16-2014, 01:20 PM
  #25  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Worries about a doomsday scenario brought about by over population are probably misplaced.
True enough. While people focus on the end of the world, for or against, there own world ends.

The end of things doesn't have to be the end of all. Many peoples have come and gone, many violently. To them it was doomsday.

I aim small so I miss small. What are people doing when the seek to hit the globe? Defiantly not aiming small, so the miss big time what's going on around them.

We run too fast to shed blood to ever have too many people.
nodog is offline  
Old 06-16-2014, 06:00 PM
  #26  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,371
Default

Originally Posted by nodog View Post
exactly my point. What were they doing instead of planning...
I have been there a few times and can tell you with all certainty that they weren't "planning" anywhere along burbon street. Good food and booze, great music along with lots of people watching.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 06-17-2014, 02:11 PM
  #27  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,869
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander View Post
I have been there a few times and can tell you with all certainty that they weren't "planning" anywhere along burbon street. Good food and booze, great music along with lots of people watching.
When doom was predicted I'm sure Bourbon street didn't even close a window. No biggy since we were far removed from them, but what happens when were not?

When vice becomes all there is, a small fire destroys a nation.

Vice has one common trait, self. Are we not living in the Me generation?
nodog is offline  
Old 06-17-2014, 09:07 PM
  #28  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,126
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Huh, you're kidding right? 90%
Isn't it amazing how the LIBs always cling on that "90%"? Funny thing is, that figure only exists in the numbers put out by those claiming climate change is caused by man. When you actually research the matter, there are many thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that dispel the majority of the claims of the climate change clowns. Peer reviewed articles are important because it means all the information can be verified and substantiated. I doubt the OP can back up the "90%" claim with peer reviewed data considering so much of the climate change data has been proven to be fraudulent.

Every time I have a "Genius" try to tell me that man is responsible for climate change I simply ask them to explain the 2 dozen ice ages the earth has gone through previously. Funny thing about all the previous ice ages is that every one of them happened without man being able to do a thing about them. I've yet to have a "Genius" be able to offer a rational explanation. They simply start to cry "denier". They simply cannot grasp the fact that the climate has always changed and it always will. Anyone seen a dinosaur walking around lately? Climate change brought on by an asteroid strike wiped them out long before man walked upright.
flags is offline  
Old 06-18-2014, 03:40 AM
  #29  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,294
Default

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
*facepalm* Read the abstract. They werenít trying to say it meant that scientists thought gobal warming was a farce. This makes sense, too, because they were contacting geoscientists and engineers in the oil and gas industry in Alberta Canada, which would be completely asinine if they truly were gauging what the scientific community thought of global warming. Forbes routinely has articles like these, so Iím not surprised.

an ignores everything else including the fact that a search of the internet will turn up a whole lot more.
I ignored it because they were nonsense. Youíre talking about no more than a few dozen individuals who are biased. The internet commonly turns up a lot of information. Many of it is false, so more needs to be said than just 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."
No they donít. There are the conservative news sites like dailymail, foxnews, and others.

1- CO2 accounts for a little less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.
This argument shows ignorance.

The radiative forcing by CO2 goes as the logarithm of the concentration, and if you removed all of it, the impact would be significantly greater than doubling the gas. Moreover, at even smaller amounts than today, you would be opening up absorption in the 15 micron band, so the difference would be even greater. Additionally, water vapor concentration is dependent on the system heating up, so CO2 is a boost. Just because something is in small amounts (e.g. botulism toxin), it doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect. This thinking of yours is clearly wrong for CO2, too.

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.
The preindustrial concentration wasnít 380 ppm. Itís changes very slowly (unless major event), but the changes have been observed directly, and we are the cause of the increase.

3- These measurements don't go back beyond 800,000 years. We have no current knowledge of the range of fluctuation prior to that.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
http://skepticalscience.com



http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/la...-levels-111074

ďTripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England's University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past ó by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.
"We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years ó the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice," Tripati said. "This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.Ē

Yes, we do.

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.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...ncertainty.htm

This shows incredible ignorance. Itís an indisputable fact. You can compare emissions to changes in global concentration. Additionally, it has been independently confirmed via measuring changes in CO2 isotopes, which indicate carbon from fossil fuels.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.

1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 gigatonnes C.

Atomic mass of carbon = 12 Atomic mass of CO2 = 44

44 CO2/12 C * 2.13 gigatonnes of C

1ppm = 7.81 gigatonnes of CO2

Emissions are in the 30's (gigatonnes) per year, and we know the oceans absorb a significant amount of that, so it's obvious to anyone that what's being measured at Mauna Loa is the accumulation of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2...centration.htm



Falling C13/C12 ratio


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.
Youíre ignoring CO2ís role, and scientists donít deny changes in the past; theyíre trying to tell you the current rate of change is unusual, and itís because of us.

6- Even at 380 ppm, the catastrophic effects predicted by the AGW believers are nowhere to be seen.[
It already fits well. Itís going to get worse, but itíll take decades for some people with thick heads to realize it.

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.
Just in

http://mashable.com/2014/06/17/earth...st-may-spring/

ďTwo of the leading centers that track global surface temperatures have reported their data for May, and they both found it to be the warmest such month on record for the planet. NASA found that May had an average global temperature that was 1.38 degrees Fahrenheit above average, which would make it the warmest such month, coming out far ahead of May 2012. The Japanese Meteorological Agency's separate analysis also found both May and the meteorological spring months of March through May to be the warmest on record.Ē

Isn't it amazing how the LIBs always cling on that "90%"?
It's 97%

When you actually research the matter, there are many thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that dispel the majority of the claims of the climate change clowns. Peer reviewed articles are important because it means all the information can be verified and substantiated.
LOL What are you considering "peer reviewed"? You just pulled that out of thin air. It's the complete opposite. I can easily prove this via textbooks and showing articles from Nature and other journals.

Here's a list of climate skeptics with a database on peer reviewed articles some of them had published. Many had published nothing, or if they did, it was just a few.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer...edskeptics.php

I doubt the OP can back up the "90%" claim with peer reviewed data considering so much of the climate change data has been proven to be fraudulent.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Naomi Oreskes did a survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She couldn't find one single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

John Cook et al (2013) looked at 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of "global warming" and "global climate change" and found that 97% agreed that humans were causing it.

I simply ask them to explain the 2 dozen ice ages the earth has gone through previously. Funny thing about all the previous ice ages is that every one of them happened without man being able to do a thing about them. I've yet to have a "Genius" be able to offer a rational explanation.
Easy. The rate of change in temperature is higher now than before. Natural change is more gradual (unless it's a significant event). This argument is also laughable because the models fit the past data if you include warming and cooling caused by fluctuations in CO2.
BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 06-19-2014, 07:19 AM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,294
Default

Worries about a doomsday scenario brought about by over population are probably misplaced. The population of most first world countries is actually declining. 40% of the population of Japan is now over 60. We see the same effect in South Korea, where the fertility rate for women has fallen to 1.21. It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 per woman to maintain population. China is now amending their one-child policy. They face another problem. There is not a sufficient number of females for all the young men who survived the one-child policy. This will obviously deter population increase there.
Nigeria alone is projected to hit almost a billion in 2100. The most recent revised UN projections have world population at almost 11 billion during that time. It's a problem because you and me are unlikely to exist in a civilization that has produced only about 100 billion people, yet we find ourselves in one. It's easily accounted for if you assume that many other civilizations exist (especially "many worlds") and nearly all of those civilizations die out sooner than thought (fits well with Fermi Paradox).

This basically shows what I'm talking about.

http://cjwainwright.co.uk/comics/rnd14


I'm optimistic that we will be able to solve these problems with which we'll be faced. But it will require honest assessment of the facts as opposed to scare tactics by people with a political agenda.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../363315a0.html

Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects

"Making only the assumption that you are a random intelligent observer, limits for the total longevity of our species of 0.2 million to 8 million years can be derived at the 95% confidence level. Further consideration indicates that we are unlikely to colonize the Galaxy, and that we are likely to have a higher population than the median for intelligent species."

Last edited by BigBuck22; 06-19-2014 at 07:22 AM.
BigBuck22 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.