What do you think of climate change?

You are deflecting from the topic you raised, plain and simple.

The ‘feedbacks’ are the most damaging aspect of climate change models yet you repeatedly ignore every post on ‘feedbacks’. Either you don’t understand the science or you are writing simply as an agenda driven shill for alarmists.

I repeat, since CO2 feedbacks are projected to deliver over 2/3 of projected warming, us ‘deniers’ think they are VERY IMPORTANT. They can’t be ignored while you banter about the 1C in warming we experience directly from CO2 radiative forcing, the only settled science in the climate change discussion.

You should really stop trying to educate people until you get a grasp of 'feedbacks.

2 Likes

Phaster is not denying the importance of feedbacks. But if people don’t even believe that CO2 traps infrared heat at all (which is basic science) then they certainly won’t be in a position to understand feedbacks. And the posts that phaster quoted showed that people do indeed lack the basic understanding of the primitive action of CO2 in the climate.

You got a supporting example of anyone here who denies CO2 is a GHG?

I haven’t seen it here, so he’s just fighting a convenient strawman.

It is very worrisome, we already start to see it with more frequent and severe weather (floodings, draughts, heat waves). Also France experienced record temperatures, with a very severe heat wave which puts at risk seniors and children.

Thankfully we have not reached the point of no return, but if we do not act and do something we will.

The US has been doing remarkably well in reducing our CO2 output vs projections, thank you very much.

The global issue is in China, India and other 3rd world countries becoming developed countries. You can’t develop without increasing CO2 output significantly.

1 Like

I understand it is a global problem, so it should also be globally addressed. However the US recently left the Paris agreement.

Integrity should matter, it was a bad agreement and that’s why not a single major emitter is meeting their Paris goals. In spite of all that, US is leading in reductions

2 Likes

This reliability issue with green energy is going to be in the news more and more as green energy is slotted to fill base load requirements.

1 Like

Michael Moore’s new documentary isn’t getting much press coverage.
It’s critical of green energy.

I think phaster was speaking about science understanding in society at large and not accusing anyone here of explicitly denying the CO2 is a GHG. And even if no one here explicitly has denied CO2 produces a GHG effect, I would guess that some here are silently doubting it.

Unfortunately, a far, far,…far less brilliant man is doing all he can to thwart the brilliant solutions. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

That’s fake news. Weather disasters are God’s punishment for sin. :rofl::laughing::grin::smile:

The issue is one of perspective. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn’t in dispute. The extent to which it is and the extent to which feedbacks are in play ought to be disputed, critiqued and questioned until a far better understanding of both is achieved.

There are brilliant scientists who do NOT “lack the basic understanding of the primitive action of CO2 in the climate…” who nonetheless question the “consensus” both points.

Here is a good example of one…

Not only is CO2 a greenhouse gas, it is also the crucial source of carbon – the key building material for all life on earth – for all life on earth.

So there is the tradeoff: label CO2 a “pollutant” and a danger to life, or view it as a crucial element in the existence and prolongation of life on earth. Which will you choose, Leaf?

And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-3)

False choice.
Limiting new CO2 to present historically high levels does not eliminate it. There will still be historically high levels for the foreseeable future.

All I know is that it is hot as H where I live. The heat index has been between 105 to 115 each afternoon. Hottest that I can remember. No rain in sight.
Praying for rain and some heat relief. :pray::pray::pray::pray::pray:

1 Like

I have made it clear my opinion of statistics, but this is a perspective we need to keep in mind. It is good to see both sides of the ecology debate. America should lead the way in carbon emissions, as it is one of our great national sins.

Protecting the planet, and protecting the poor go hand in hand. As long as we see the same moral directives as Catholics, I think discussion is fruitful, not divisive.

1 Like

Current levels of CO2 are at “historically high levels,” but they are barely above starvation levels for plants. Whether or not the levels of CO2 pose a great danger or great opportunity is the question that ought to be debated not just assumed.

1 Like

Then how have the plants been surviving?

Survival is quite a different matter from thriving.

Prehistorically, the levels of CO2 were far higher than today and plants (along with animals) flourished.

Oh, and there was no “run-away” greenhouse effect due to high levels of CO2.

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.