• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the Pope's encyclical affect your position on global warming?

Will the Pope's encyclical affect your position on global warming?

  • I'm a non-Catholic Christian -- yes

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • I'm a non-Catholic Christian -- no

    Votes: 10 66.7%

  • I'm Catholic -- yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm Catholic -- no

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Oh my god, they killed John! Those BASTARDS!!!

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Goshin said:
Aha. I'm just a dumb cop right? WTF do I know.


Prejudice much? Do you often resort to "Neener neener, you're a stupidhead" when confronted with opposing viewpoints? How very enlightened of you. :D
Click to expand...

Well if you're dumb then I'm dumb, because last I heard most any scientific field requires more academic background than the ability to paint a pretty portrait.


So, only scientists working in the field of climatology are allowed to have viewpoints on AGW?
Click to expand...

No, non-climatologists are allowed to have viewpoints, but those viewpoints just won't carry very much weight.

Goshin said:
Ok then....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming







NASA Scientists Against AGW | The SPPI Blog


.



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes





Well if I am the ignorant and uneducated wretch you wish to portray me as, at least I appear to be in good company. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Very good. In a might display of Google you were able to scour the vast reaches of the internet and find people who agree with you. Now let me ask you this: as you and I are both non-scientists, what logical reason do you have to take the word of 3% of the world's scientists over 97% of the other scientists who accept AGW?
 
Cardinal said:
Well if you're dumb then I'm dumb, because last I heard most any scientific field requires more academic background than the ability to paint a pretty portrait.




No, non-climatologists are allowed to have viewpoints, they just won't carry very much weight.



Very good. In a might display of Google you were able to scour the vast reaches of the internet and find people who agree with you. Now let me ask you this: as you and I are both non-scientists, what logical reason do you have to take the word of 3% of the world's scientists over 97% of the other scientists who accept AGW?
Click to expand...



In part because the 97/3 claim appears to be bogus, which if you'd read my links you would have seen.

Hey... we could play "battle of the internet links and studies" for hours. We'd get nowhere... it rarely ever does.

There are a certain number of scientists and a certain body of work supporting AGW, who claim to be a majority and a "consensus".


Then there's a body of work and a certain number of scientists who are skeptical of AGW, and studies showing THEY are actually the majority.


so what do you and I do?

Well I examined the available information and sampled various viewpoints and chose a position... as did you.
 
Cardinal said:
Other trends are:

  • anti-vaccination
  • evolution denial
  • heavy drug use
  • Islamic extremism
  • Truther-ism
  • Birther-ism


Which goes to show: uneducated people believe in (and do) a lot of stupid crap. It's good when the head of any faith does his/her part to address ignorance. Now, sure, atheists will probably jump up my ass at the irony of the head of religion addressing ignorance, but you can't win every battle.
Click to expand...

I guess you need to warn Princeton University they're keeping bad company. One of the world's leading AGW skeptics was recently appointed to their Institute for Advanced Studies.
 
Goshin said:
In part because the 97/3 claim appears to be bogus, which if you'd read my links you would have seen.

Hey... we could play "battle of the internet links and studies" for hours. We'd get nowhere... it rarely ever does.

There are a certain number of scientists and a certain body of work supporting AGW, who claim to be a majority and a "consensus".


Then there's a body of work and a certain number of scientists who are skeptical of AGW, and studies showing THEY are actually the majority.


so what do you and I do?
Click to expand...

So your response is to split hairs on the 97/3 figure? Goshin, even if the real number is "only" 80%, that still constitutes an overwhelming majority. If we were to wage a battle of the links citing actual scientific articles and not blogs by non-scientists, your sources would be so crushed under the weight of my sources that yours would be compressed into a diamond.

Goshin said:
Well I examined the available information and sampled various viewpoints and chose a position... as did you.
Click to expand...

No. You, a person with no scientific background, took the word of 3% of scientists that agreed with you and you used their information to support your position.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I guess you need to warn Princeton University they're keeping bad company. One of the world's leading AGW skeptics was recently appointed to their Institute for Advanced Studies.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You, like Goshin, were able to use a search engine to find one scientist out of a crushingly small minority of scientists who agree with your viewpoint.
 
Cardinal said:
Congratulations. You, like Goshin, were able to use a search engine to find one scientist out of a crushingly small minority of scientists who agree with your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I didn't find Nir Shaviv, Princeton did, and they decided he is the one they want in the Institute for Advanced Studies. He has joined Henrik Svensmark as a proponent of cosmoclimatology.
 
Goshin said:
Ok then....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming







NASA Scientists Against AGW | The SPPI Blog


.



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes





Well if I am the ignorant and uneducated wretch you wish to portray me as, at least I appear to be in good company. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The Nasa link was the first one I clicked on. Looking into it further I found this from Live Science:
In its four paragraphs, the letter deliberately avoids delving into its signatories' reasons for doubting climate-change science, Cunningham told LiveScience. "It's really trying to get NASA to back off from taking political positions on science." [10 Climate Change Myths Busted]

Human-caused global warming is "a very open issue right now," he said.

However, that is not how the scientific establishment sees it. NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati responded to the letter to say that if the work of NASA scientists — who may use the agency's space-based observation tools to study climate change — withstands the scrutiny of other scientists through peer review, then it encourages them to share their results with the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse," Abdalati said in the statement.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
I didn't find Nir Shaviv, Princeton did, and they decided he is the one they want in the Institute for Advanced Studies. He has joined Henrik Svensmark as a proponent of cosmoclimatology.
Click to expand...

And if I were to link to the rest of the scientists (the overwhelming majority) that accept AGW, would that sway you? As I know your answer will be a resounding no, why did you think your one cherry picked person would sway me?
 
Cardinal said:
And if I were to link to the rest of the scientists (the overwhelming majority) that accept AGW, would that sway you? As I know your answer will be a resounding no, why did you think your one cherry picked person would sway me?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to sway you. The science will do that. As for majority opinion, as Einstein said about the Hundred Against Einstein, "If they were right one would be enough."
 
Cardinal said:
I think it's fair to say then you didn't vote for any of the first four options.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for any options, there are no valid options to vote for.
 
Goshin said:
So, only scientists working in the field of climatology are allowed to have viewpoints on AGW?
Click to expand...
Science vs skeptic blogger.....


"...In 2011 sceptics welcomed the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature project, partly funded by the Charles Koch’s foundation, because it promised to address “the five major concerns that global warming sceptics had identified” in the temperature record.

A prominent ‘sceptic’ blogger, Anthony Watts, declared: “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong”.

However, when the Berkeley project produced similar results to the Met Office and other meteorological organisations, Watts and other ‘sceptics’ rejected the findings...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)​


So yes, it's better if the viewpoint on climate change is based on science instead of opinion.



NASA Scientists Against AGW | The SPPI Blog
Click to expand...
Nope.

Scepticism over rising temperatures? Lord Lawson peddles a fake controversy | Environment | The Guardian


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
Click to expand...
I don't think that article means what you think it means. After a lengthy synopsis of all the arguments for and against climate change, the author concludes that framing the climate change debate around risk management would be a good way to get insurance and financial companies on board with climate change regulations promoted by the IPCC.....


"...Yet this dissension, declining public interest, and political intransigence may be immaterial. A potential, yet so far unused discursive opportunity to ‘broker’ between pro-regulation frames and ‘economic responsibility’ may lie in a more comprehensive (i.e., including financial) understanding of risk (Hoffman, 2011b). Nagel (2011) discusses how the insurance and reinsurance industry is supremely concerned about exposure to financial risks associated with extreme weather events. The US military is concerned about security risks associated with ‘population displacements, increased potential for failed states and terrorism, potential escalation of conflicts over resources’ (Nagel, 2011, p. 206). Risk management is of fundamental concern to all – including energy – companies, insurance and finance industries, military and other government agencies. Professional engineers and geoscientists (and lawyers, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) are in the business of managing risk. Indeed, engineers have recognized these risks, been working behind the scenes, and revised the Canadian Building Codes to adapt to the changing climate. As our analysis of the different storylines shows, reframing climate change as a risk to be managed – as has been promoted by the IPCC in their recent report (IPCC, 2011) – has the discursive potential to provide a bridge (Snow et al., 1986) to integrate various frames (except ‘fatalists’ who seem generally apathetic) and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts, and motivational consensus.​


The insurance companies, the US military and the Pope believe climate change is real.
 
There's really nothing that the pope could say or do that would have any bearing on what I think or do. That said, I rather like this pope, though there's never been another pope that I've liked in my lifetime. And I'm glad to see the church acknowledge the superiority of science.
 
Nothing the pope says about anything effects any of my positions on important and semi-important issues.
 
Goshin said:
Aha. I'm just a dumb cop right? WTF do I know.


Prejudice much? Do you often resort to "Neener neener, you're a stupidhead" when confronted with opposing viewpoints? How very enlightened of you. :D


So, only scientists working in the field of climatology are allowed to have viewpoints on AGW?


Ok then....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming







NASA Scientists Against AGW | The SPPI Blog


.



Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes





Well if I am the ignorant and uneducated wretch you wish to portray me as, at least I appear to be in good company. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why most of this short list of 'experts' are retired or emeritus?

Have a little think and get back to us.
 
The Catholic church is a mere mafia, like all other religions.
 
The denier argument would be a lot more palatable if it weren't delivered in such a hyperbolic obnoxious way. It would also help if deniers were truthful about the current state of the debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom