What do you think of climate change?

Yes CO2 is sometimes added to greenhouse air to make the plants grow better. But that is because a commercial greenhouse has other ways of controlling temperature. It is not subject to the climate effects of CO2. That is why it is silly to talk about the botanical effects of CO2 for the whole earth system and ignore all the rest of the effects.

Prehistorically we did not have millions of people living close to sea level and a population dependent on high efficiency monoculture farming, which is more vulnerable to climate change.

And just as silly to claim CO2 is primarily a “greenhouse gas,” a “pollutant,” and the “control knob” of climate change and “ignore all the rest of [its] effects.”

1 Like

Yes to the first one. (It was known in 1896).
No to the second. (Straw man on your part)
?? to the third, depending on how you interpret “control knob”. Yes, it has an effect. No, it is not a simple and exclusive effect.

The Church should take a more measured approach about this issue, since the folks who most aggressively push the issue are left-leaning, progressive types, who in most other matters believe and practice things contrary to the Church.

I received a donation request the other day from the “International Catholic Migration Commission” which stated that impoverished people and countries were being disproportionately affected by “climate change.”

Well, any bad weather event will affect these areas, because their construction standards, quality of living, infrastructure, medical care, and ability to respond to disasters is well behind Western countries. So it’s a bit deceptive to claim it’s caused by “climate change.”

This is so true. Earthquakes & storms in developed countries cause less damage and few deaths vs what we see in developing countries with poor building standards.

This is readily apparent when you look at deaths from natural disasters in the USA. The numbers were far higher in the past, when we had a much lower population.

So you are for promoting “highly efficient monoculture” and a high human population at the expense of the health of the rest of nature?

Interesting, given that many climate alarmists are for reducing human populations to what they claim are sustainable levels at around 1 billion.

Something doesn’t compute, then, because either you or the majority of climate alarmists are being inconsistent.

Are high CO2 levels good for nature generally but bad for human populations as you claim? Or are high CO2 levels bad for nature but good for human populations at the expense of other species as the green alarmists claim?

1 Like

No, I am reporting what is now. We are, for better or worse, dependent on farming techniques that are highly sensitive to climate change.

Replace “many” by “a few.”

It seems like you would like nothing better than to put everyone who disagrees with you in one box and stick one simple label on it and assume they all believe exactly the same thing. “What can I say, kid, life’s complicated..” (Yesss, from RBTI).

Notions of good and bad depend on what you are going for. CO2 is good for plant growth. CO2 in excess is bad for climate change, which in turn is good for some plants and not for others. That in turn is good for some bugs and not for others. In particular, bugs that carry tropical diseases can be expected to migrate out from the tropics as the climate warms. Then some of the plants that benefit from the CO2 are weeds that will compete with our food-growing plants. And I haven’t even gotten into the direct weather related consequences. I’m sure some people will benefit greatly from climate change - primarily those who already have control over resources. Their numbers are small. The poor scratching out a subsistence living will be the hardest hit.

So good? Bad? That depend on what you are going for.

2 Likes

CO2 is provably good for plant growth, it is NOT “in excess… bad for climate change.”

You, along with a large number of indoctrinated climate alarmists, assume that it is, but that has not been established in anything like beyond reasonable doubt.

Care to provide some proof for your claim?

Is so.

Read the article. There is nowhere in it that the claim is made that CO2 is “bad” for climate change.

It is claimed to be a “‘point of no return’ into territory that is unknown for the human race,” but that need not imply any lasting or dire consequences.

CO2 is the most important man-made greenhouse gas, which means (in a simple sense) that it acts like a blanket trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. It comes from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, as well as deforestation. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 317 ppm in 1958 (when Charles David Keeling began making his historical measurements at Mauna Loa) to 400 ppm today. It’s projected to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040.

To some, crossing the threshold of 400 ppm is a signal that we are now firmly seated in the “Anthropocene,” a human epoch where people are having major and lasting impacts on the planet. Because of the long lifetime of CO2, to others it means we are marching inexorably towards a “point of no return,” into territory that is unknown for the human race.

Arguably, the article does claim “people are having major and lasting impacts on the planet,” How would that be known? In fact, prehistorically, CO2 levels were up to ten times higher than 400 ppm and those weren’t “lasting” since the earth also had lower levels of CO2 following those times.

Also, in fact, higher CO2 levels almost always followed increases in temperature, not the other way around. That makes sense since the oceans are a major store for CO2 and when they warm their holding capacity is reduced. Hence the rise in CO2 levels after global warming.

The language is rather tenuous. What exactly does “the most important man-made greenhouse gas” actually mean? It isn’t like all CO2 is man-made. And it isn’t as if it really is the most important greenhouse gas over all. In fact, the claim is demonstrably untrue since water vapour is far more significant as a greenhouse gas and it, too, is man-made to some extent.

Furthermore, what exactly does “To some, crossing the threshold of 400 ppm is a signal that we are now firmly seated in the “Anthropocene,” a human epoch where people are having major and lasting impacts on the planet…,” mean?

Only to some is this a signal? Which “some” are those? Are they reliable experts or just propagandists? It doesn’t even say “to some experts,” just “to some.”

Hardly convincing as demonstrating what you claim about CO2.

The first paragraph in the article is scare mongering, followed by a bunch of tenuous claims that a rise in CO2 levels might “for some” take us into a Pliocene-like scenario. No proof. No argument that temperature rise is inexorably linked to CO2 as the effect to a determinable cause. Just loose innuendo and appeals to emotional terrorism.

Nothing scientific or convincing. Written like a Bill Nye op-ed, absent the threat to jail or fine deniers.

The biggest scientific scandal of our generation. It’s all about using well-intentioned but ill-informed people to work towards giving the Left power over every aspect of life.

Here is a link to the type of good article about Climategate that mysteriously doesn’t show up in google searches. Climategate was covered-up at the time, and hidden these days:


A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

1 Like

Same here.

In Brief.

Climate always Changes.
Historically… Periods of WARM have been very favorable to LIFE and Periods of COLD have not.
Historically, Mamma Nature has always had an extreme impact upon “Earth’s Temp”

This article was written by the foremost climate change skeptics/deniers. Articles from people who believe in UFO’s or Bigfoot might think their cover-up is a greater scandal.

I would not deny that politicians (left and right) are capable of lying and conspiring for power. I can see where even scientist might do this? But business have a proven track record of lying to increase profit, be they oil companies, or tobacco companies.

I do not doubt you articles will appeal to those who already buy in this sort of conspiracy. FYI, one is a writer/journalist, the other a lawyer.

I’m sorry to say that it appears that the idea of “man-made” climate change is an Alinsky tactic to give Leftists power over all of life. They use well-intentioned, but ill-informed people.
How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

  1. Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people.
  2. Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
  3. Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
  4. Gun Control- Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
  5. Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
  6. Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school.
  7. Religion - Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
  8. Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
    Does any of this sound like what is happening to the United States?
    Alinsky merely simplified Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism, under Russian rule. Stalin described his converts as “Useful Idiots.”
    The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control. It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.
    “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3401416/posts

1 Like

I think many of the consequences cited in the article most people would consider as harmful.

“Lasting” as used in the article does not mean forever. It means a very long time in geological terms - long enough to cause multiple generations of humans to suffer terrible losses. We are already beginning to see some of those loses now.

That apparent lead is due to the fact that CO2 and temperature form a feedback loop so that both affect each other.

There are ways to determine what percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. So we do know.

Water vapor is more of a factor, but it is also more of a constant factor. It is already part of the approximate equilibrium that existed in pre-industrial times. It is not going up like CO2 is.

You can research that on your own. I don’t feel obligated to explain it all to you.

Did I claim substantially more than NASA claimed in the citation? If not, then take it up with them.

In science we don’t talk about "proof"of a theory. We talk about “support”. And there is support for this theory.

Then I guess those nefarious forces must have started really early, because the theory was first proposed in 1896.

That isn’t what the historical record shows. There are so many factors which affect both temperature and CO2 levels that the supposed “feedback loop” isn’t at all apparent.

CO2 in black and average global temperatures in blue (see image below) have no definitive correlation, historically. Temperatures have been very low on earth during times when CO2 levels were over 4000 ppm, have been quite high when CO2 levels were low, and were both high or both low at other times.

Taken from the Tony Heller video.

1 Like
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.