For answers you just need to look into who this Pope really is. IMHO his views are not divinely inspired. Nor many others for that matter.

 

His efforts may be better served taking care of that pesky priest diddling children thingy. They've managed to sweep it under the rug but it's still going on.

 

For what it is worth, the Pope has a Masters Degree in Chemistry and I love how he tied the protection of the environment with protecting the unborn.

 

My understanding is that his degree was from the equivalent of a high school level technical school. Not an advanced degree from an accredited university.

 

Make him a deal he can't refuse. You want to dabble in politics, give up your tax exempt status. Pay me.

 

Pope is a Joke........

 

Today we use 131% more natural gas, 107% more coal, and 39% more oil than we did in 1980. Where is the climate change? Not on God’s green earth!

And we have about 2 1/2 times as much reserve oil now as in 1980.

 

Except that most of it cannot be accessed unless prices are high enough.

 

Peak oil alarmists NEVER take advances in techniques and technology into the equation. We recover far more oil from a formation than we did in 1970, they're even going back and reopening closed wells.

 

That's because current circumstances show that there are no technofixes. Even with a tripling of oil prices conventional production barely went up. Another irony is that the same tripling only made unconventional production affordable.

The results are high production and marginal costs coupled with volatile prices.

 

Peak Oil is a valid theory that applies to individual oil wells and oil fields.

There are some exceptions with changes in technology where old fields are reopened and now produce more oil than they did in their prior life.

When used regarding world production, it is a code word for "I'm a stupid person with shallow intellect."

 

According to Roman Catholic dogma, the Pope is infallible when speaking about Catholic tenants and principles.
His credibility while opining about other subjects are no better than yours and mine.

 

Now that the pope embraces science will evolution be taught in his sunday school?

Just so hard to take a guy lecturing people on excessive wealth seriously when he is wearing silk and gilded robes while standing at a marble alter.

Trying to take the moral high ground while conspiring to keep his pedophile minions from being prosecuted.

 

Well it looks like he and Obama got a little to cosy when they met. It wouldn't suprise me at all if Obama made some kind of financial contribution or promise during their meeting..

 

The catch is that it's not just Obama but officials from the past three Republican administrations, the Pentagon, the U.S. military, military and intelligence organizations in other countries, several oil companies, multinational banks, insurers, and even conservative organizations like the IEA are issuing similar warnings concerning AGW.

 

In 1972 the Club of Rome released a book, which in essence said we would run out of oil and natural gas by 1993. They also said we would run out of gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc, and lead before 1994.

The standard run world model is given here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

Climate scientist Paul Ehrlich said in 1971, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people…” In 1974 Ehrlich predicted that, “American’s economic joy ride is coming to an end: there will be no more cheap, abundant energy, no more cheap abundant food.” Ehrlich told college students in 1986 that carbon dioxide would cause climate changes that would kill as many as a billion people before 2020.

Climate studies during the early 1970s was not as sophisticated as they are today. Given that, recent studies should be heeded.

Life Magazine wrote in 1970, “Scientist have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas mask to survive air pollution” and “by “1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by half”.

Consider China.

Climate science expert James Hansen, of Goddard Space Flight fame, predicted in 1986 the greenhouse effect would prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures will rise above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years. He also predicted that between 1990 and 2000 global temperatures would increase 5 degrees F and another 2 to 4 degrees F by 2010.

More of the heat was being absorbed by the ocean, which in turn is causing other problems.

Over the above period global use of carbon based fuels have doubled and none of the above predictions are even remotely close to coming true any time in the future.

Two recent studies show that models from the 1990s onward have been fairly accurate.

Today we use 131% more natural gas, 107% more coal, and 39% more oil than we did in 1980. Where is the climate change? Not on God’s green earth!

CO2 ppm is now 400 ppm. It has never gone above 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.

The NAS argues that this has a forcing and feedback factor, and the former is now kicking in. An independent study funded by skeptics confirms the same.

It seems to me the Pope’s place on the subject of human caused climate change would best be served in the confessional and not in science and economics.

Actually, the statement is based on science and economics. Recent financial crashes and the point that the global economy is still in "recovery" reveals that.

There are more details for all of these points in my other posts.

 

I'm pretty sure that most conservatives deny it because it's something the typical liberal holds true. There is a lot of science behind this subject, yet it's easily disregarded and mocked. However, bring up bigfoot, chemtrails and weather control stations in Antarctica and suddenly a person is willing to accept it as true because it fits the narrative they have in their head.

 

I don't think so Name. If they hadn't changed the data maybe we would not be so skeptical. But then you have all these people who tout AGW, flying in their private jets, buying huge mansions etc., Maybe if they practiced what they preached, many of us would not be as skeptical as we are.

 

Is this pope gulable to the appeal to popularity and the associated fallacies?

 

I think this pope might just be the Antichrist.
Scary...but think about it, he has a lot of power, there are a lot of catholics all over the world, and if he starts meddling in politics, especially to try and bring down the U.S., he just might be.

 

Seems appropriate for someone that believes in religious fairy tales to also believe in man made global warming. Next up on the Papal list is how mankind should respond to aliens. Oh wait... Ancient Astronaut Theorists think the Pope and various world leaders are aliens.

 

I would have thought Francis' dismissal of Obama's beloved Cap-And-Trade plan as a ploy, almost certainly ineffectual, and foolish would have brought a torrent of approval from this board...

Anyway, his encyclical is good, but probably irrelevant. Even if all the religious leaders from the Pope to Glen Beck (you don't think HE'S a cult leader?) said the world was at risk from climate change, it would do no good. The political and economic leaders of the world are morons and won't do anything until it's too late. China says they'll pollute massively for decades more before they start to clean up; India says they're not even going to try reining their pollution in. Nothing the U.S. can do will stop this. We're hosed. It's up to individuals to prepare as best they can, because the rest of the world won't until the death toll gets massive. Best to try not be a part of the tally.

(I also wish to make a comment about some of the posters on this forum. When the public is warned about the possibility of danger - hurricanes, earthquakes, pandemic - many of them tend to respond with denial, refusal to believe, or strange and unrealistic ideas about government capacities. This has earned them the contemptuous designation of 'Sheeple' in the survivalist community, which likes to think THEY are much wiser and smarter.

With global warming we are getting warnings of danger on a scale far beyond anything the human race has encountered before. The response of many here is denial, refusal to believe, or strange and unrealistic ideas about government capacities.

It would appear a lot of so-called 'survivalists' are Sheeple in wolf's clothing. )

 

With global warming we are getting warnings of danger on a scale far beyond anything the human race has encountered before. The response of many here is denial, refusal to believe, or strange and unrealistic ideas about government capacities.

. )

This isn't yet another discussion on global warming (or is it?) but just out of curiosity, what "danger" of massive scale do you think we are in for? What do you think is going to happen exactly and how?

( for the record, I think manmade "global warming" is bs, it is just politically motivated nonsense to justify our government taking more freedom and money from us)

 

Interesting, related, article.

https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/

 

Let's leave the petty bickering and cheap shots OUT of the discussion please.


Thanks in advance.

 

Where is the fun in that?!

Because no one extracts significant amounts of oil at a loss.

Read through what I wrote again. Reserve oil is defined as the oil that is economically feasible to extract. So saying increases in reserve oil doesn't lead to increases in oil that can be economically extracted utterly ignores the very definition of reserve oil.

 

Lets establish something right now. The vast majority of us do NOT deny the climate is changing, only a fool or an idiot would do that.

What we deny is that the change is caused by the direct effect of man. The climate has changed many times during the history of the Earth, man's time during that history is less than a heart beat. The climate will change regardless, no matter what I drive, eat, live in, or pee in. Me and mine make zero difference, the Earth will do what it wishes!

 

I don't know where you live, but visit China and India and say that humans can't affect the environment

 

Well I can't say "go look how human affected the climate" because you don't believe in it. The excuse that humans are too small and the earth is too big is bs

 

And that......is where we disagree.

 

I am sure he was done considerable research on
his own and this makes him the expert he is; NOT
I change this just a little bit Me and mine make zero difference, GOD will do what HE wishes WITH THE EARTH.

 

God has all sorts of horrible plans for the earth and it's people and animals. Horrific things. Deaths of millions at a single blow. Millions of His animals wiped out. Diseases, hailstones the size of bowling balls, insects that will swarm and sting people to death. Massive destruction to the forests, oceans, mountains. All at His command. The Pope knows that. He knows it probably better than I do.

 

I'm not so sure I share your optimism about the pope.

 

We consume over 80% carbon based fuels than we did in 1980. Yet life expectancy has increased. Energy on demand is the lifeblood of healthcare. Every were energy consumption has increased so has life expectancy. Carbon dioxides have not increased at the same rate as carbon based fuel consumption has neither has the forecasted increase in temperatures.

If carbon dioxide was an actual threat there would be a global push to plant trees and other plants. There has been none.

Everywhere solar and wind power has been pushed, like Germany, they have found that more not less carbon based fuel consumption is necessary. Coal consumption is up in Germany largely because solar and wind are not reliable.

Just like stop and go driving uses more gasoline so does stop and go coal and gas generated electricity. So far Germany has been able sell off their excess power to other European countries so the impact has not been as dramatic as it could be.

Solar was a failure in the 70’s and it is still a failure. Wind is doable only in very selected areas.

The entire argument from doom and gloom forecast to the efficiency and reliability of solar, wind, biofuels are a lie and a fraud. I do not care if it is from the Pope, President, Democrat or Republican it is all a damn lie! Just who does the Pope go to on Fridays? He’s going to be in that confessional a long long time.

 

We consume over 80% carbon based fuels than we did in 1980. Yet life expectancy has increased. Energy on demand is the lifeblood of healthcare. Every were energy consumption has increased so has life expectancy. Carbon dioxides have not increased at the same rate as carbon based fuel consumption has neither has the forecasted increase in temperatures.

Life expectancy went up because some of the fuel was used to increase mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, leading to increased food supply, medicine, etc.

The problem is that CO2 ppm has been rising: now at 400. The highest has always been 300 for the past 0.5 million years.

Surface temperature has also been increasing, even with a solar minimum.

The biggest surprise is ocean heat content.

If carbon dioxide was an actual threat there would be a global push to plant trees and other plants. There has been none.

That's because they are used for construction, are cleared for more agriculture, etc. And there's more money to be made from that than from the opposite.

Everywhere solar and wind power has been pushed, like Germany, they have found that more not less carbon based fuel consumption is necessary. Coal consumption is up in Germany largely because solar and wind are not reliable.

That's because significant components manufacturing, mechanized agriculture, mining, and shipping involve oil.

The catch is that conventional production has barely risen, and production costs plus capex have increased significantly. That's why more have been moving to renewable energy.

The problem is that the energy returns for RE are as low as current oil production, and the global economy needs the opposite.

With that, it is likely that the world will decrease energy and resource consumption, and struggle to use RE and other energy sources not to deal with climate change but because of resource supply issues caused by low energy returns and the effects of climate change.

Just like stop and go driving uses more gasoline so does stop and go coal and gas generated electricity. So far Germany has been able sell off their excess power to other European countries so the impact has not been as dramatic as it could be.

Solar was a failure in the 70’s and it is still a failure. Wind is doable only in very selected areas.

The entire argument from doom and gloom forecast to the efficiency and reliability of solar, wind, biofuels are a lie and a fraud. I do not care if it is from the Pope, President, Democrat or Republican it is all a damn lie! Just who does the Pope go to on Fridays? He’s going to be in that confessional a long long time.

The reason why they are being used is because oil is now a failure. Energy returns have been dropping readily for decades, and the world is now resorting to unconventional production because the "easy" oil is now gone.

Given these points, more are beginning to realize that we face not one crisis but multiple problems:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

For survivalists, this news is not surprising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Survivalism#Outline_of_scenarios_and_outlooks

 

It is true that an increase in CO2 increases temperatures. Anyone that has pumped CO2 into a greenhouse knows that. The question is are increases linear, positively accelerating, or negative accelerating functional. Positive accelerating would mean as a linear increase in CO2 would cause an accelerated increase in global temperatures. Data has shown this is not the case. Data also shows the increase is not linear. In fact there has been a flattening temperature period during which CO2 has continued to increase.

That only leaves the fact that increases on CO2 have a negative accelerating effect as a function of its effect on global temperatures. This also disproves the notion that CO2 has a synergistic effect on global temperatures.

What is proven, biological fact that increases on CO2 even to the point that humans cannot live in such an environment has a positive acceleration effect on plant (aka crop) growth. It is plant growth that all animal life depends.

If the Pope, politicians and scientist were really honest about carding for humankind they would not be against the use of carbon based fuels. Mankind has never been healthier, had more time to devote to non-survival functions since the rapid growth of carbon based energy. Everything depends on an energy source. There is no more efficient harnessable energy sources than coal, oil, and natural gas. Plus these are sources that provide on demand energy. Solar is available only when the sunshines and expensive to store. Wing generation is only available when and where the wind blows it too is expensive to store. Plus often the most efficient places to get solar and wind energy are often far from areas of energy demand.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are very portable. They can be easily and efficiently carried to the areas where humankind most needs them.

The bottom line is there is no better proof of the benefits exceeding the risk of carbon based fuels than India and China. Their health, mortality and happiness has increased with their increased use of coal, oil and natural gas. Not only that global nutrition is better. Food prices have not gotten out of reach but are more affordibal and available to the global poor. Coal, oil and natural gas are God given gifts to mankind to speak against them is to speak against God.

 

It is true that an increase in CO2 increases temperatures. Anyone that has pumped CO2 into a greenhouse knows that. The question is are increases linear, positively accelerating, or negative accelerating functional. Positive accelerating would mean as a linear increase in CO2 would cause an accelerated increase in global temperatures. Data has shown this is not the case. Data also shows the increase is not linear. In fact there has been a flattening temperature period during which CO2 has continued to increase.

The increase is not linear, but the trend line is still upward:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

That only leaves the fact that increases on CO2 have a negative accelerating effect as a function of its effect on global temperatures. This also disproves the notion that CO2 has a synergistic effect on global temperatures.

The catch is that surface temp. anomaly is still increasing. The cause likely has to do with CO2 ppm triggering multiple feedback loops. Lots of links here:

http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

As for the effect of CO2 ppm on global temperatures, one can look at Vostok data, and see a correlation between the two.

What is proven, biological fact that increases on CO2 even to the point that humans cannot live in such an environment has a positive acceleration effect on plant (aka crop) growth. It is plant growth that all animal life depends.

This can be proven in a laboratory. On the other hand, the world is much more complex. Hence, significant increases in CO2 may have the opposite effect:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

If the Pope, politicians and scientist were really honest about carding for humankind they would not be against the use of carbon based fuels. Mankind has never been healthier, had more time to devote to non-survival functions since the rapid growth of carbon based energy. Everything depends on an energy source. There is no more efficient harnessable energy sources than coal, oil, and natural gas. Plus these are sources that provide on demand energy. Solar is available only when the sunshines and expensive to store. Wing generation is only available when and where the wind blows it too is expensive to store. Plus often the most efficient places to get solar and wind energy are often far from areas of energy demand.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are very portable. They can be easily and efficiently carried to the areas where humankind most needs them.

The problem is that the world also faces peak oil and similar issues with other resources. The IEA argues that to deal with both, RE is inevitable:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo-2010.html

The catch is that energy returns for RE are low, and the same is taking place for oil (which is why we are now resorting to unconventional production).

The bottom line is there is no better proof of the benefits exceeding the risk of carbon based fuels than India and China. Their health, mortality and happiness has increased with their increased use of coal, oil and natural gas. Not only that global nutrition is better. Food prices have not gotten out of reach but are more affordibal and available to the global poor. Coal, oil and natural gas are God given gifts to mankind to speak against them is to speak against God.

Their pollution levels have also gone up. Meanwhile, oil production costs have risen as well.

Given these and the low energy returns from various sources, then at least the demise of middle class conveniences is inevitable.