Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[up2u2]

You have been miss led.

In the 1960s to 70s global cooling was considered most likely by the scientific community. You obviously were not old enough to remember some of the very cold snowy winters of that period. I can't imagine where you got your "theory" that science has always discussed climate change being a result of global warming.

Consensus, means the majority think it's right, just like the consensus among Germans in 1934 thought the Jews were to blame for Germany losing WW1, or the consensus among people in the 16th century that thought if you cast a witch into the water she would float.

Have you not bought a Christmas card showing the Thames frozen over in the late 18th century. 1940s saw some of the coldest winters ever recorded, only 70 years ago. So what "evidence is showing now"?

CC is a fact, scientific or whatever, it has always been happening. GW is a most distasteful religion because of the way it attacks unbelievers.

So if the next ice age is due in 13,000 years, what happened to GW ? It has taken the earth 10,000 years or more to reach this point and recover from the last ice-age, somewhere there has to be a balance point, or do you suggest we wait until we're a mile deep under ice before we agree GW was a temporary thing ?

Governments love green taxes, money for old rope. Politicians worldwide are totally cynical, they really don't give a hoot about climate changes that will affect the common man. They have their villas in nice places, their bank accounts (off shore) full, and I am not talking about the Thai elite. The tax raised from green taxes goes into the general "pot" so tell me how you know that money raised vs money spent inhibiting "global warming" is neutral.

So you think data sifting does not occur, well I guess you grew up in a nice cosy bubble and not the real world. Both sides of this debate are guilty, or are you one of the "but but but Thaksin" brigade.

I never stated at all that the University of East Anglia changed, lied or falsified any data. You misquote me sir. I stated they selectively used their data. Slander is so common among your green Spanish inquisition.

One thing I will agree with you on, Marsha Blackburn is a dangerous wacko, but she is more of a danger to a sensible debate by spouting such big business backed fudge.

These are very old misinformation points on GW / CC none of them have any scientific credibility. If you look at the actual science you will find these have all been addressed and excluded as false arguments. Been there done it 100 times.

[willyumiii]

The Pop[e has a degree in Chemistry.

He is an actual scientist who understands the chemistry of global warming.

He is not a politician afraid to upset multi billion dollar corporations who would suffer from reduce profits if they had to pay the price of cleaning up the deadly emissions caused by their industries.

He does not need multi billion dollar corporations to fund his campaigns for election and reelections.

It is the propaganda of US Republicans and the corporations they support who need to be " ignored on climate.".

[eliotness]

OK guys, I agree the earth's climate is changing, it always has done, it has never been constant. Now you prove that it is mankind that has made it change, not mother nature.

For the x number of times, if we continue breeding at the current rate life will be unsustainable on this planet, no matter what the level of CO2 is.

So whilst the Pope preaches the global warming religion but ignores population increase he is a FALSE PHROPHET.

Yes Earth's Climate does change of tens of thousands of years. There is plenty of peer reviewed scientific evidence that shows increased CO2 is anthropogenic.

What level of population reduction is required to stop global warming? Is there any scientific modelling? Would be interested to see it.

I would assume by your reply you are either a catholic or a father of several children.

So the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are caused by mankind, ok possible, but what about recorded increases in the past, found by analysis of ice deep in the polar regions. I repeat my assertion that increased CO2 has been a consequence of global warming in history NOT the cause.

But just look at your power consumption, the amount of plastic in your home, the cement, the steel, the amount of rare earth minerals in your various devices, the carbon footprint of your lifestyle and then multiply that by the number of children you have fathered and the number they too will add the world's population, and then tell me you are doing your bit to reduce Global Warming ?

[stevenl]

Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

financial suicide? you really think the oil industry, koch brothers and the heartland institute are going to turn away someone who can prove AGW isnt happening? somehow I think your logic is missing something

The point is, as you have just shown, anyone who has a different interpretation of the data is subject to the most vile attacks. That fact you sir cannot deny. There are out there, a group of people, "rent a mob" if you will, who are totally anti capitalist who will joyfully wreck any chance of a logical scientific debate. It is beyond doubt, as exampled by the posts on this site that this topic is far more politics than science.

You're right, much more politics than science. The science on this is very clear and convincing: we are experiencing manmade global warming.

[willyumiii]

OK guys, I agree the earth's climate is changing, it always has done, it has never been constant. Now you prove that it is mankind that has made it change, not mother nature.

For the x number of times, if we continue breeding at the current rate life will be unsustainable on this planet, no matter what the level of CO2 is.

So whilst the Pope preaches the global warming religion but ignores population increase he is a FALSE PHROPHET.

Yes Earth's Climate does change of tens of thousands of years. There is plenty of peer reviewed scientific evidence that shows increased CO2 is anthropogenic.

What level of population reduction is required to stop global warming? Is there any scientific modelling? Would be interested to see it.

Climate change is real.

It matters not if it is human caused or not.

Humans have the knowledge and technology to influence the climate in a positive direction and should do so.

Let's get serious.

What is more important, large profits for multi billion dollar corporations and their stock holders, or a safe environment to live in?

Where are you going to spend all of that money when we have no place to live?

It's past time to argue about who or what is to blame for climate change.

It is time to do everything we can do to correct the problem, no matter what the cost.

[eliotness]

The Pop[e has a degree in Chemistry.

He is an actual scientist who understands the chemistry of global warming.

He is not a politician afraid to upset multi billion dollar corporations who would suffer from reduce profits if they had to pay the price of cleaning up the deadly emissions caused by their industries.

He does not need multi billion dollar corporations to fund his campaigns for election and reelections.

It is the propaganda of US Republicans and the corporations they support who need to be " ignored on climate.".

So you think the Catholic Church is not a multi million corporation. It was the first multi million corporation in existence and is probably still one of the richest. When I was at university there was a full 24 volt nun doing a PhD in Nuclear Physics, does that make the Catholic Church experts in nuclear energy ??? or worse, nuclear warfare.

You, with I assume the most noble intentions, are confusing environmental pollution with global warming. For example, heavy metal pollution can have terrible effects, but has no effect at all on the climate

[canuckamuck]

Climate change is real.

It matters not if it is human caused or not.

That's just silly, If it is a natural event how are you going to stop it? Taxes, Lobby groups, restructuring global borders and government, shutting down the modern world?

Humans have the knowledge and technology to influence the climate in a positive direction and should do so.

No they don't and which direction should you go. A warmer earth would bring a bounty of food production and upgrades in living standards. A colder earth would bring the opposite.

[willyumiii]

The Pop[e has a degree in Chemistry.

He is an actual scientist who understands the chemistry of global warming.

He is not a politician afraid to upset multi billion dollar corporations who would suffer from reduce profits if they had to pay the price of cleaning up the deadly emissions caused by their industries.

He does not need multi billion dollar corporations to fund his campaigns for election and reelections.

It is the propaganda of US Republicans and the corporations they support who need to be " ignored on climate.".

So you think the Catholic Church is not a multi million corporation. It was the first multi million corporation in existence and is probably still one of the richest. When I was at university there was a full 24 volt nun doing a PhD in Nuclear Physics, does that make the Catholic Church experts in nuclear energy ??? or worse, nuclear warfare.

You, with I assume the most noble intentions, are confusing environmental pollution with global warming. For example, heavy metal pollution can have terrible effects, but has no effect at all on the climate

Maybe I should have stated that I am not a christian and have always considered Christianity the most evil influence in history.

They are a greedy, multi billion dollar corporation that sells fantasies and they are tax exempt!!

Until Pope Francis came along, I had no respect for the organization at all.

Much of what he has said is logical and compassionate.

Logic and compassion are no things Catholics and/or Republicans have ever been known for.

And I do agree that climate change is not the only serious problem staring us in the face that we are ignoring.

[canuckamuck]

The Pop[e has a degree in Chemistry.

He is an actual scientist who understands the chemistry of global warming.

He is not a politician afraid to upset multi billion dollar corporations who would suffer from reduce profits if they had to pay the price of cleaning up the deadly emissions caused by their industries.

He does not need multi billion dollar corporations to fund his campaigns for election and reelections.

It is the propaganda of US Republicans and the corporations they support who need to be " ignored on climate.".

So you think the Catholic Church is not a multi million corporation. It was the first multi million corporation in existence and is probably still one of the richest. When I was at university there was a full 24 volt nun doing a PhD in Nuclear Physics, does that make the Catholic Church experts in nuclear energy ??? or worse, nuclear warfare.

You, with I assume the most noble intentions, are confusing environmental pollution with global warming. For example, heavy metal pollution can have terrible effects, but has no effect at all on the climate

Maybe I should have stated that I am not a christian and have always considered Christianity the most evil influence in history.

They are a greedy, multi billion dollar corporation that sells fantasies and they are tax exempt!!

Until Pope Francis came along, I had no respect for the organization at all.

Much of what he has said is logical and compassionate.

Logic and compassion are no things Catholics and/or Republicans have ever been known for.

And I do agree that climate change is not the only serious problem staring us in the face that we are ignoring.

So if you had to choose to get on a plane with a group of fundamentalist Muslims or a group of fundamentalist Christians, you would take the Muslims every time?

[willyumiii]

The Pop[e has a degree in Chemistry.

He is an actual scientist who understands the chemistry of global warming.

He is not a politician afraid to upset multi billion dollar corporations who would suffer from reduce profits if they had to pay the price of cleaning up the deadly emissions caused by their industries.

He does not need multi billion dollar corporations to fund his campaigns for election and reelections.

It is the propaganda of US Republicans and the corporations they support who need to be " ignored on climate.".

So you think the Catholic Church is not a multi million corporation. It was the first multi million corporation in existence and is probably still one of the richest. When I was at university there was a full 24 volt nun doing a PhD in Nuclear Physics, does that make the Catholic Church experts in nuclear energy ??? or worse, nuclear warfare.

You, with I assume the most noble intentions, are confusing environmental pollution with global warming. For example, heavy metal pollution can have terrible effects, but has no effect at all on the climate

Maybe I should have stated that I am not a christian and have always considered Christianity the most evil influence in history.

They are a greedy, multi billion dollar corporation that sells fantasies and they are tax exempt!!

Until Pope Francis came along, I had no respect for the organization at all.

Much of what he has said is logical and compassionate.

Logic and compassion are no things Catholics and/or Republicans have ever been known for.

And I do agree that climate change is not the only serious problem staring us in the face that we are ignoring.

So if you had to choose to get on a plane with a group of fundamentalist Muslims or a group of fundamentalist Christians, you would take the Muslims every time?

We are straying off topic quite a bit here, so this will be my last off topic reply...

I try not to do anything "every time".

And I try not to paint with a broad brush and consider all people individuals.

I know and love some good Christian people, but I know many who are very evil as well.

Since I have lived in Asia, I have met and got to know some very good Muslim people as well.

I don't much care for fundamentalist of any flavor.

This is a photo of a very nice, sweet, intelligent and compassionate Muslim I met a few months ago.

I would love to get on a plane and travel with her.

By the way, she requested the photo, since she had never met an American who did not hate Muslims before.

I believe that people are just people the world over, it is the governments and religious leaders who are the trouble makers!

This is the group she was with.

I was walking alone and they invited me to join them for lunch.

We spent the entire day together talking .

They were all good people

!

Edited September 29, 2015 by willyumiii

[canuckamuck]

Truly a bunny trail there. My comment was in respect to your referring to Christians as the most evil organization on the planet. Nice to see you met some nice folks on the beach. OK off topicness done

[chuckd]

I don't know about you folks but I am unpacking my bags. They've been packed and sitting beside the front door

for over one year now.

I never should have believed that global warming stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Planet Still Standing 500 Days After French Foreign Minister Warned of 'Climate Chaos'

8:08 AM, SEP 29, 2015 • BY JERYL BIER

In May 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State

John Kerry that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." Late last week, time ran out. Fabius's original remarks

were as follows:

"Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself,

and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question

of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of

climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that

President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other

friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter."

More here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/planet-still-standing-500-days-after-french-foreign-minister-warned-climate-chaos_1038074.html

[up2u2]

I would assume by your reply you are either a catholic or a father of several children.

So the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are caused by mankind, ok possible, but what about recorded increases in the past, found by analysis of ice deep in the polar regions. I repeat my assertion that increased CO2 has been a consequence of global warming in history NOT the cause.

But just look at your power consumption, the amount of plastic in your home, the cement, the steel, the amount of rare earth minerals in your various devices, the carbon footprint of your lifestyle and then multiply that by the number of children you have fathered and the number they too will add the world's population, and then tell me you are doing your bit to reduce Global Warming ?

You couldn't be further from the truth.

History is exactly what GW / CC is based on. Climates do change over thousands upon thousands of years not over decades and hundreds of years. Vostok and Greenland Ice Core proxy records show this.

So what is the research on population reduction to eliminate GW / CC?

[canuckamuck]

I would assume by your reply you are either a catholic or a father of several children.

So the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are caused by mankind, ok possible, but what about recorded increases in the past, found by analysis of ice deep in the polar regions. I repeat my assertion that increased CO2 has been a consequence of global warming in history NOT the cause.

But just look at your power consumption, the amount of plastic in your home, the cement, the steel, the amount of rare earth minerals in your various devices, the carbon footprint of your lifestyle and then multiply that by the number of children you have fathered and the number they too will add the world's population, and then tell me you are doing your bit to reduce Global Warming ?

You couldn't be further from the truth.

History is exactly what GW / CC is based on. Climates do change over thousands upon thousands of years not over decades and hundreds of years. Vostok and Greenland Ice Core proxy records show this.

So what is the research on population reduction to eliminate GW / CC?

Spreading more misinformation I see. The American institute of physics disagrees with your last statement.

The new view of climate was reinforced by one of the last great achievements of the Soviet Union, an ice core drilled with French collaboration at Vostok in Antarctica. The record reached back through nearly four complete glacial-interglacial cycles — and drastic temperature changes peppered almost every stretch of data. This Antarctic record was too fuzzy to say whether any of these changes had come and gone on the decade-size timescale of the Younger Dryas. But warm interglacial periods had certainly been subject to big swings of temperature lasting for centuries. Especially striking to the researchers, by contrast, was our own era, the ten thousand years since the last glaciation. It was, "by far, the longest stable warm period recorded in Antarctica during the past 420 [thousand years]." Link

[eliotness]

I would assume by your reply you are either a catholic or a father of several children.

So the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are caused by mankind, ok possible, but what about recorded increases in the past, found by analysis of ice deep in the polar regions. I repeat my assertion that increased CO2 has been a consequence of global warming in history NOT the cause.

But just look at your power consumption, the amount of plastic in your home, the cement, the steel, the amount of rare earth minerals in your various devices, the carbon footprint of your lifestyle and then multiply that by the number of children you have fathered and the number they too will add the world's population, and then tell me you are doing your bit to reduce Global Warming ?

You couldn't be further from the truth.

History is exactly what GW / CC is based on. Climates do change over thousands upon thousands of years not over decades and hundreds of years. Vostok and Greenland Ice Core proxy records show this.

So what is the research on population reduction to eliminate GW / CC?

That my friend is actually my point. How can the Pope campaign on global warming and yet oppose birth control ?

Only the Chinese, ironically as they became a major producer of greenhouse gases, tried to control birthrates. Not sure if it's still being enforced so strictly, but at least they tried.

There have been many attempts at population reduction in the 20th century, especially 2 world wars. However imagine trying to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions during those conflicts !

I'm sure given a sustainable growth rate, mankind can develop technologies to help adapt to whatever climate change throws at us, while at the same time reducing any contribution from our industries and lifestyles . However if 3rd world countries continue to have 10+ children per female, then changes in their local climate may have disastrous consequences, e.g. recent climatic events in Bangladesh.

Finally, during the late 19th century the River Thames used to freeze during winter. Some of the coldest winters ever recorded occurred during the 20th century. Climate change can happen regionally within 10s of years. Major change over the whole globe may take thousands of years, but people are more concerned what is happening in their lifetimes and not several generations down the road.

[RPCVguy]

Disagreeing with Congresswoman Blackburn on Climate is easy. Pope Francis has a far more acurate assessment of the science than does she. (even though he DID NOT earn a bachelors or masters degree in Chemistry - he DID EARN a technician's degree in chemistry from a technical school and worked as a chemist technician in Buenos Aires before joining the seminary.)
I do have a Bachelor Degree in Chemistry and recommend again the charts and video I supplied in
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/858072-ignore-pope-on-climate-says-us-republican-marsha-blackburn/page-5#entry9907482
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/858072-ignore-pope-on-climate-says-us-republican-marsha-blackburn/page-5#entry9908105 and
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/858072-ignore-pope-on-climate-says-us-republican-marsha-blackburn/page-5#entry9908590

although it is clear that some would prefer not to face the truth of Exxon's deception,
or to face the PROOF (in that video) that HUMANS HAVE CAUSED THE CLIMATE CHANGE NOW UNDERWAY. It is funny to observe the way data is ignored and discussion changed - some here are masters of the tricks of diverting debate through exaggeration, false dichotomy, evasion, distraction... the list goes on http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html

As a PRIME example is how Eliotness repeats this claim "I repeat my assertion that increased CO2 has been a consequence of global warming in history NOT the cause."

... ignoring that it has been responded to "True, but that was because the swings in CO2 during the multiple Ice Ages were initiated by the angle of the Earth's Axis and by the excentricities of the orbit - neither of which accounts for the variations in temperature now in evidence. Nor does volcanic activity or Solar radiance. Those factors, absent the changes in Greenhouse Gases (all of which were converted to CO2 equivalencies in the last graphic of my prior post.

see what all the other known variations amount to until considering CO2

The Little Ice Age, Natural Factors, vs Human Factors are covered in this segment of Climate Denial 101x

It is always encouraging to know a few others on ThaiVisa are also studious in tracking Climate data enough to resist myths. Most of the graphs I previosly posted were based upon the 4th report from the IPCC. This site assembles some from the latest (5th) report
http://climatenexus.org/debunking-top-10-climate-change-myths

Surprizingly, I do agree, already acknowledged agreement, with Eliotness on the issue of population - that it is unsustainable. The Pope of Rome did use his science to explain CO2 and its consequences, but dealing with birth control at this point might lead to some Papal Palace intrique as a remedy. Calling for the pope to deal with it now is not going to be heard... ... Here is an example of that shared view - not from the academic and conference realm where I have argued it, but from another opinion slinger - who assembles his ideas well http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

Enjoy... Yes, there are many ways humanity can experience its demise,
but everyone sharing in the above debate will likely breathe easier and appreciate his closing words of advice.
... if you take the time to look.

[Pinot]

The wingnutoshere is united in its denial of Global warming/climate change. Useless arguing with some people when they're unable to change their minds. Like rolling around in the slop with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.

You just can't fix stupid. Here's today village idiot: Rush Limbaugh pans news about water on Mars as part of the leftist agenda. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-mars-leftist-plot-214179

Climate change deniers...make fun of them, don't bother engaging.

[chuckd]

The wingnutoshere is united in its denial of Global warming/climate change. Useless arguing with some people when they're unable to change their minds. Like rolling around in the slop with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.

You just can't fix stupid. Here's today village idiot: Rush Limbaugh pans news about water on Mars as part of the leftist agenda. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/rush-limbaugh-mars-leftist-plot-214179

Climate change deniers...make fun of them, don't bother engaging.

"make fun of them, don't bother engaging.

Particularly when that's all you have.

[phycokiller]

Sure a lot of climate scientists back the AGW theory, because they know which side their bread is buttered. To voice any opposition is to commit financial suicide, no one will employ you and financial backing will be withdrawn. And as for being allowed to air your views on the media, forget it, unless of course you're able to be branded a wacko republican politician from America.

financial suicide? you really think the oil industry, koch brothers and the heartland institute are going to turn away someone who can prove AGW isnt happening? somehow I think your logic is missing something

The point is, as you have just shown, anyone who has a different interpretation of the data is subject to the most vile attacks. That fact you sir cannot deny. There are out there, a group of people, "rent a mob" if you will, who are totally anti capitalist who will joyfully wreck any chance of a logical scientific debate. It is beyond doubt, as exampled by the posts on this site that this topic is far more politics than science.

if your posts are anything to go by then we are in agreement

Edited September 30, 2015 by phycokiller

[Somtamme]

The Pope is merely pointing out the morality of CC to US politicians. It is the agreed scientific consensus that politicians must act. This is problem, not religion, and nor science. Yes, there is uncertainties with modelling impacts, but this does not mean the consensus of opinion is wrong. But it's good politicians are sometimes reminded of their responsibilities to us all.

[up2u2]

Really good posts RPCV based on an understanding of the actual peer reviewed science of GW / CC.

The Milankovitch Cycles of Glaciations and Inter-glacials in the past have very little influence on GW caused by increased greenhouse CO₂ gases. I am surprised it is possible to detect them in the data.

The 3 minute video 'It's Us' was excellent. So simple to understand and process.

The thing that annoys me the most about people like Marsha Blackburn is being the second in charge on the House Energy Committee she is able to speak with absolute Climate Science genius like Mears, Trenberth, Dessler, Mann, Muller, Rahmstorf etc etc etc etc but who does she actually request? Climate commentators funded by the Fossil Fuel industry Lindzen, Spencer, Curry et al. When it comes to 17,500 peer reviewed Papers confirming AGW she sides with the ONE singular Paper that rejects AGW and states 'The jury is out on AGW'.

It is difficult to accept that Politicians can be so corrupted by ideology and corporate lobbyists.

The never ending Climate Zombie Myths that never die, East Anglia Climategate, climate has always changed, The Medieval Warming Period, The Maunder Minimum, The predicted Ice Age in the 70's, Glaciers / Sea Ice is increasing, It's sunspot activity, Climate Change is a religion, Earth hasn't warmed in 12, 13, 17 years, there is no solution. man cannot control the weather. It just goes on and on and on and of course complete and utter nonsense when you look at the actual peer reviewed science on GW / CC.

One thing with people who reject GW / CC they stay a million miles away and demonstrate they have never read ANY peer reviewed science on GW / CC. All you really need to do is read the Abstract of the Paper and it is set out pretty simply and easily understood.

Here is a peer reviewed published Paper outlining the 70's Global Cooling Myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

It simply is not that hard to understand that there was no substantial scientific consensus on Global Cooling in the 70's. It is a myth but it just gets repeated over and over and over again.

[notmyself]

[eliotness]

Really good posts RPCV based on an understanding of the actual peer reviewed science of GW / CC.

The Milankovitch Cycles of Glaciations and Inter-glacials in the past have very little influence on GW caused by increased greenhouse CO₂ gases. I am surprised it is possible to detect them in the data.

The 3 minute video 'It's Us' was excellent. So simple to understand and process.

The thing that annoys me the most about people like Marsha Blackburn is being the second in charge on the House Energy Committee she is able to speak with absolute Climate Science genius like Mears, Trenberth, Dessler, Mann, Muller, Rahmstorf etc etc etc etc but who does she actually request? Climate commentators funded by the Fossil Fuel industry Lindzen, Spencer, Curry et al. When it comes to 17,500 peer reviewed Papers confirming AGW she sides with the ONE singular Paper that rejects AGW and states 'The jury is out on AGW'.

It is difficult to accept that Politicians can be so corrupted by ideology and corporate lobbyists.

The never ending Climate Zombie Myths that never die, East Anglia Climategate, climate has always changed, The Medieval Warming Period, The Maunder Minimum, The predicted Ice Age in the 70's, Glaciers / Sea Ice is increasing, It's sunspot activity, Climate Change is a religion, Earth hasn't warmed in 12, 13, 17 years, there is no solution. man cannot control the weather. It just goes on and on and on and of course complete and utter nonsense when you look at the actual peer reviewed science on GW / CC.

One thing with people who reject GW / CC they stay a million miles away and demonstrate they have never read ANY peer reviewed science on GW / CC. All you really need to do is read the Abstract of the Paper and it is set out pretty simply and easily understood.

Here is a peer reviewed published Paper outlining the 70's Global Cooling Myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

It simply is not that hard to understand that there was no substantial scientific consensus on Global Cooling in the 70's. It is a myth but it just gets repeated over and over and over again.

To quote a phrase "you weren't there man, how could you know" I remember -17 in the morning, snow feet deep lasting for weeks, homes in remote areas being cut off for weeks. Oh but of course I lived in the North of England so obviously for you metropolitan elite that doesn't count. It's not a myth my friend when all your pipes are frozen, the water in your kitchen sink is a block of ice, believe me. During that mythical period I worked for a water company and for several winters our sewage works froze up totally so we had to dispose of raw sewage directly into local rivers, with the consequential fish kill. Myths are for the cosy and warm, facts are for those who got frostbite.

[eliotness]

So cheesy it should be called Cheddar.

[streboris]

Lets have a few barbecues with charcoal burned INSIDE her home and then let her decide if it's poisoning the climate through the gases we all breathe or not.

Charcoal vs Solar. That is the question of energy in the 21st century.

because solar cells are a readily available natural resource...

[eliotness]

Lets have a few barbecues with charcoal burned INSIDE her home and then let her decide if it's poisoning the climate through the gases we all breathe or not.

Charcoal vs Solar. That is the question of energy in the 21st century.

because solar cells are a readily available natural resource...[/quote

Sorry to rain on your parade, but solar cells are not manufactured from thin air, they need batteries to store the generated electricity, and they have a limited efficiency and a limited life span. But saying that, if I had some spare money I would love to have solar cells powering, if only partially, my aircon.

[streboris]

Lets have a few barbecues with charcoal burned INSIDE her home and then let her decide if it's poisoning the climate through the gases we all breathe or not.

Charcoal vs Solar. That is the question of energy in the 21st century.

because solar cells are a readily available natural resource...[/quote

Sorry to rain on your parade, but solar cells are not manufactured from thin air, they need batteries to store the generated electricity, and they have a limited efficiency and a limited life span. But saying that, if I had some spare money I would love to have solar cells powering, if only partially, my aircon.

Yeah the energy used in the manufacture of a solar array is probably more than the energy they produce during their limited life span.... Charcoal is much more environmentally friendly

[streboris]

Of course for the Pope to suggest that God needs our help to keep things in balance, he's clearly lost his faith and possibly his mind... So she's quite right to ignore him ;-p

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Somtamme]

This politician is educated in Home Economics and with background in Marketing, but now sits on the US Energy Committee. It's potentially a recipe for disaster.

[Somtamme]

She also argues against evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34342808