James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'


#1

The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

I have to agree with Hansen on this, there is little public support and practically no political support for the difficult and painful transition to 100% renewables. Look at how the majority of catholics on these forums choose to ignore the Holy Father and promote climate change denialism.

Obama supports an all-of-the-above approach with cap and trade legislation, which has been shown to be ineffective and amounts to a hand out for Wall Street. There are simply too many special interests that will prevent this transition from happening in any significant way.

We have the best government money can buy and the masses to keep voting them in office. I expect nothing but platitudes, deception and staus quo from our political elites.


#2

There is a positive note to end on, however. Global emissions have somewhat stalled and Hansen believes China, the world’s largest emitter, will now step up to provide the leadership lacking from the US.

Hansen puts his faith in the Chinese Communists.


#3

Tony Micelli.

You said:

Look at how the majority of catholics on these forums choose to ignore the Holy Father and promote climate change denialism.

I am perplexed by your statement here.

I do not support the global warming agenda.

Yet I think I DO support and affirm everything of what Pope Francis has said about environmental issues.

WHAT do YOU think the Pope has said . . . . that I may NOT agree with?

(Please provide me with quotes)

Thanks.

God bless.

Cathoholic


#4

It’s not “denialism”, it’s about finding the Truth.

Furthermore, some of my colleagues, even those who agree with global warming, are worried about the individuals advising the Vatican. They feel the Vatican is being snookered into promoting a population control agenda.

Obama supports an all-of-the-above approach with cap and trade legislation, which has been shown to be ineffective and amounts to a hand out for Wall Street. There are simply too many special interests that will prevent this transition from happening in any significant way.

Cap and trade could back fire in the worst way possible and lead to mass extinctions.

We have the best government money can buy and the masses to keep voting them in office. I expect nothing but platitudes, deception and staus quo from our political elites.

The deception is that it’s “settled” science that man’s CO2 is the driver behind climate change.

40 years ago or so some of the experts were saying we’d all be floating in ice cubes by now.


#5

I personally think climate change is a bit of a wolf in sheep’s clothing at the moment to be honest. After all, if one country on Earth or one person on Earth doesn’t get on ‘board’ with this, then it ruins it for everyone and makes their efforts futile. therefore, it’s excellent grounds for a tyrannical and oppressive regime I think. So I am extremely wary of all this.

  1. Will our efforts ‘fix’ climate change or only slow it down? The Earth is perishing anyway but fair enough, it isn’t right for people to trash it and speed things up in the process, but one must also have a healthy understanding that the Earth is perishing regardless and not to go ‘overboard’ with this.

  2. I am also reminded of the following Gospel passages, Matthew 8:23-27, Luke 8:22-25, Mark 4:35-41 -

And especially considering all the evil that is going on in the world at the moment, I think it’s a bit of a joke to raise this to superior than our own brothers and sisters being oppressed, abused and slaughtered.

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts on the subject at the moment, I hope this has helped.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#6

I’d say we have the best electorate money can buy and the government to keep borrowing money to placate them. :confused:


#7

I tend to agree. If the idea is to move to renewable energy why not just redirect some tax money into vetted, promising companies which investigate ‘better’ ways of producing power?

Why not drop the tax rate for these companies to zero for say 50 years?

Why not organise an international confederation of scientists with financial backing from the different countries to work round the clock hypothesising and testing ‘better’ ways to produce power.

Think of what could be achieved with say 20 international groups of 100 scientists each funded by different countries - China, the U.S. India, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the E.U. etc.

The billions of dollars promised would go a long way if it was directly given to vetted co-operatives of specialist scientists overlooked by sovereign governments.

You only need one or two groups to be successful and everyone wins.

The increased tax approach seems to want to give government too much influence and ‘punitively punish’ very important creators of wealth in some sort of ‘Green power’ irrational vendetta on capitalism.

I reckon that kind of thinking is divisive and counter productive if moving to renewable energy is actually the real goal…


#8

#9

Because I tend to think this is about easy money and power and prestige and not finding the Truth.

Common sense just cannot be accommodated in a selfish agenda. :nope: :dts:


#10

100% renewable is not going to happen at any time unless everybody (and I do mean everybody) accepts a down-leap in way of living to at least the level of 1900.

Renewable energy will never power Airbuses, or SUVs, or in all likelihood power the Internet.

And many in Western nations oppose the environmental agenda because it is seen as penalizing them on behalf of the other side of the world. If that remains the pattern, say hi to tripled CO[sub]2[/sub].

ICXC NIKA


#11

I think more of Hitler’s superior race kind of thing, the same I believe can easily happen here, the ones on board with whatever their global council decides to combat climate change with will be the ‘superior’ race of people, while those who deny or don’t do as much to combat it, will be labeled as the ‘inferior’ race and people will not be able to stand those who are not on board with their climate change proposals as they are destroying the Earth for everyone else, therefore it will be deemed okay, even righteous to eliminate people who others see as not capable of being ‘trusted with the survival of the Earth’.

I read somewhere that apparently ‘humans’ and ‘overpopulation’ are the biggest contributors. So yes, I am very wary, has all the hallmarks of an evil ideology that could justify all sorts of evil.

It will become all about ‘The Greater Good’ which is the survival of the Earth through globally combating climate change, which no doubt, would justify all sorts of evil.

People need to have a healthy understanding that the Earth is perishing regardless, by all means, put appropriate measures in place to slow it down, but know the boundaries. This trying to get a global affront to it, I believe is not a good idea.

I agree, stuff like that would make much more sense. This global alliance in combating climate change, I believe is dangerous. especially considering the ideology that goes with it.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#12

It’s not practical just in terms of probability. If people don’t have say natural gas to heat their homes up north or in the mountains or cook, they’ll just go around chopping down trees indiscriminately.

That’s why cap and trade is a dangerous scheme.


#13

Dear Cathoholic: You need to be more specific about your ideas. For one, what is the “Global Warming Agenda?”


#14

#15

All we really need is one man who would humble himself and hear from God who already has the answer. As George Washington Carver did.


#16

Gotigermonk. You said:

You need to be more specific about your ideas. For one, what is the “Global Warming Agenda?”

Actually “specifics” was what I was looking for.

Tony Micelli in the original post mentioned:

Look at how the majority of catholics on these forums choose to ignore the Holy Father and promote climate change denialism.

And I wondered and am I am still wondering, WHAT Catholic teaching or Pope Francis statement SPECIFICALLY do I (or others) CHOOSE to ignore?

I affirm ALL of Laudatio si. So I have no idea what the accusation is here.

And what does THAT “climate change denialism” that I or others supposedly have, have to do with Catholicism?


#17

‘No’ to all.

I am, but I believe it would be more helpful to point out the flaw in what I have said. I think there is a right way to combat climate change and a wrong way (I personally know very little about climate change).

I think a global alliance in combating climate change is dangerous given the ideology behind it that ‘requires’ every nation and every person to be on board with whatever the climate change proposal is or would be. From some that I have heard, I believe it is a legitimate cause for concern.

All I am saying is the ground is fertile for a tyrannical regime to arise given climate change and some of the ideologies behind it as I tried to explain in my previous post.

No doubt, I’m sure Pope Francis has condemned some approaches to combating climate change, but I’m sure you can see that nobody has heard that part of Laudato si at all (including myself). The only thing that is heard, has been heard and is being shouted is ‘Climate Change’ and an ‘Urgent’ and ‘Global’ solution. Which is? and what about those like China who do not agree to the consensus? would that justify war? (after all, unless it’s ‘Global’ any efforts are futile) I don’t believe these concerns are unfounded, but if they are, I am open minded and would be happy for an explanation about how unfounded my concerns are.

I am mainly asking for caution, not opposition. I believe there needs to be a healthy understanding that the Earth is perishing regardless and that certain boundaries should not be crossed, even if respecting them may exacerbate climate change, each nation should simply be encouraged to do what they reasonable can do. I hope this has helped.

x2 God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#18

And I am sure Pope Francis spoke against some of the bad ideologies going around in combating climate change in Laudatio si?

Because I remember hearing about it somewhere, but alas, I haven’t read Laudatio si yet, I plan to get around to it.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#19

And just one I have heard of, Bill Gates, WHO and UNICEF had been trying to combat climate change in Kenya, little did we know it was through sterilizing Kenyan women through vaccinations, in which it took some Catholic Doctors to find out they were doing it.

cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/unicef-denies-catholic-bishops-claim-kenyan-tetanus-vaccine-laced

So population control through abortion, contraceptives and sterilization is one that I know that people push (publicly/privately) in order to combat climate change.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh


#20

Thank you for bringing to my attention George Washington Carver. I am a teacher and i will create a “question and answer” sheet for the kids to read about him. Regards.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.