Now if someone would just tell the Pope there is already firm evidence that man-made emissions are altering the atmosphere. All you have to do to see this is measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and compare it to geological records. Presto, firm evidence that we have done something no natural forces acting over at least 600,000 years have done.

By Catha on 12.14.07 12:59 pm

By Eric Holcombe on 12.14.07 1:57 pm

If you will be so kind, Catha, to cite the “firm evidence” that you have, we readers would be most appreciative. Until you do so, this charge will remain no more than junk science.

Don’t be nervous, just specific. Where is the evidence?

What is the “amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to geological records?”

I’m not trying to sound like Semi on a questioning sort of day, but I can’t help but wonder why you are in a panic about this.

You are in a panic aren’t you? Aren’t you?

By chowdog2 on 12.14.07 9:19 pm

Sorry, no panic. The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 375ppm, and the highest value achieved during the past million years (approx) is around 300ppm (average value around 230ppm). The current value is directly observable, and the geologic record is derived mainly from ice cores. This is fundamental data easily accessed by anyone, widely known, and not disputed by anyone credible.

By Catha on 12.15.07 2:21 am

I read your “facts” Catha, and for the moment, accept them as accurate. However, there is nothing in your information that remotely suggests that mankind is responsible for this rise in CO2.

Did you actually read the report that Terry links to in her OP? 100 Internationally renowned scientists said the following:

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.

They call it a “natural phenomenon.” Why should the three sentences from your post strike doom and gloom into my heart?

As one of my heroes says, “I will believe in your armageddon when you (et Al.) start acting like it is armageddon.”

In the meantime, I suggest you and Al teach us some good faith by buying bicycles.

Liberals are getting totally out of control with their hysterical accusations. I refuse to buy into this doom and gloom and continue to sleep very well.

“Natural phenomenon,” folks. Natural.

By chowdog2 on 12.15.07 6:24 am

I believe that our climate is changing ever so slightly. There has been a natural ebb and flow on this planet for how long? I just wonder how the dinosaurs managed to change the climate enough back then to account for their own extinction. Can we stop this change? No one has said how we can or if we even can in clear concrete terms.

So what we have is a collection of pseudo-facts, mixed with VERY STRONG beliefs. The result of this is what I have said here: a quasi-religion and THAT is what the Pontiff is against. Blind faith. Belief in the unseen and often unprovable. The martyring of a leader or figure for their beliefs. The followers acceptance of the initial unaccepting masses to this new way of thinking. Then the slow, sometimes painful imposition of this “religion” on everyone “for his or her own good.” Have Al Gore and his minions declared a virtual eco-jihad against man all that we have accomplished? Some of those that are in line with his thinking are already engaging in terrorism in the name of that “religion.”

Is debate on the subject good? Yes it is and if Al Gore were not the C and D science student in at Harvard, he might debate with someone. But alas, he has said that he WILL NOT debate his facts. So we, the small minded in the world have to debate it here and there for him. But while debate goes on, “true believers” emerge and treat it as a religion. The pope has expressed a desire to keep people focused on God instead of Gaia. Does that help make any sense as to why the Pope made that statement? He never claimed to be a scientist, only religious.

By BCB on 12.15.07 9:26 am

Giving this further thought, I also have begun to wonder if the Pope might not be potentially looking at this another way. In this case, MAN is placing himself on the same level of importance as God. Man determines what the sins are. Man determines what the penance is. Man is capable of curing those sins. Man will pay for his indulgences through “carbon offsets.”

Man has always wished to leave his mark on the world. We build monuments in the form of highways, building and the like. One thing they all have in common is that NATURE, the great equalizer, is destroying them and attempting to bring them back into equilibrium. So what I see is Man trying to elevate himself to the level of God by claiming that they are more powerful and influential when it comes to mother earth.

So I wonder if the Pope might not be questioning the “prophets” using those oft forgotten words that most of us were taught as kids: “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Are some of these prophets of doom putting man and his importance in front of God? I have cut into a line before; I would not try to cut in front of God.

Either way, Gaia or Man, God and his plan are being discounted or even allegedly negated by the likes of a lowly life form known and man. Maybe we need more religious leaders to point this out?

By BCB on 12.15.07 11:46 am

[...] Pope Bendict XVI on Global Warming – Frankly Speaking [...]

By Some Rainy Saturday Reading From Around the Blogosphere » An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings on 12.15.07 1:48 pm

he has said that he WILL NOT debate his facts. So we, the small minded in the world have to debate it here and there for him

You’re not debating any facts. Really, you are not even talking to me.

Chowdog, mankind emits 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases each year. The concentration of those gases right now exceeds any observed amount in nearly one million years. Obviously we are the cause.

Until those scientists can explain what it is other than the obvious human contribution that is causing unprecedented build up of these gases, they are not being scientific and not making much sense. Simply calling something “natural” explains nothing.

By Catha on 12.15.07 5:25 pm

Can we stop this change? No one has said how we can or if we even can in clear concrete terms.

We can stop the change we are causing by reducing our emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

This has been the consistent message for about 20 years, and at the time you were typing your words, there was a major international conference underway formulating a plan for how we can control emissions.

By Catha on 12.16.07 12:07 pm

I remember when I was a student going through my government programming/education. Anyway, at one point, we had a chapter on environmentalism (in Geography class. Did this really fit the curriculum? But of course, this is another argument for another day…) in which we concluded that “checkbook environmentalism (one of our vocabulary words) was seen as a negative thing. Somehow, Gore and his cronies didn’t get that message. Either that, or the message has changed. My money’s on the latter.

By Curt on 12.16.07 1:43 pm

I agree with the Pope. The tipping point has likely been reached and the domino effects due to man-induced warming have begun and can not be easily solved.

You can better understand what I’m talking about on my last post.

Many of the scientist’s research that Inhoff cites has been debunked, for example Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is not a climate scientist and his assertions are based primarily on his research published 15 yrs ago! “Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?” 1992.

However, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to see that this warming is not part of a natural Milankovitch ice age cycle.

We can look to the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum to see that such climate change – “only” a 5-8 C. temp rise over a few thousand years can vastly affect ocean chemistry and cause a mass extinction event.

The temp. increase projections are being revised ever upward and previous ‘alarmist’ projections (arctic ice free by 2050) now seem very conservative. Scientists are saying we can look to an ice free arctic in 5 yrs. These projections certainly point toward a PETM type event.

I guess though, you’ll always have people like Terry Frank who obviously don’t understand the science and argue on the basis of energy industry agendas, lock step conservative ideology, or fear of gov’t control and sacrifice.

By William on 12.16.07 8:52 pm

The post

http://loosetncanon.blogspot.com/2007/12/stunning-new-data-shows-global-warming.html

By William on 12.16.07 8:52 pm

William-and there will always be blind sheep like you who are led to your slaughter.

Get lost. And take your fortune telling circus with you. Oops. I mean your climate models.

By the way, if I want to come read your site, I’ll visit. Enough with the links already. You’re like a puppy who needs some house-training.

By Terry on 12.17.07 6:44 am

Those who discount man’s contribution to what could be a critical climatic problem have a backup plan in case they are wrong: they will apologize.

By SemiPundit on 12.17.07 7:53 am

I thought it was to buy big-oil Occidental stock and operate your own zinc mine while polluting the nearby river…oh wait, that’s Algore’s backup plan.

By Eric Holcombe on 12.17.07 12:54 pm

Show me data. I can show the two hydrogen ions and one oxygen make a water molecule. Every time and not subject to any subjective or anecdotal evidence. What I am doing wrong? Is it my carbon footprint? I thought a few months ago on this blog I was creating too many greenhouse gases. Now, apparently I am wrong just to question what I am being force-fed.

Let me put this in terms that any tree hugging liberal can understand. I am trying to see things your way. I am even doing what Timothy Leary, an advocate for the use of LSD, is credited with saying: “Think for yourself and question authority”. I am trying to think for myself and not taking the advice of someone (Al Gore) that almost failed science in college. He is certainly NOT an authority so I question. Such is the beauty of freedom while we still have it or is my opinion causing greenhouse carbon emissions? The liberal mindset that claims tolerance and diversity is certainly quick to squash any open discussion and Al is living up to that. And Catha, I am talking to you here and I enjoy hearing other points of view. Would it be a debate if I used a YouTube snowman?

By BCB on 12.17.07 4:22 pm

BCB, I understand that you despise Al Gore. Unlike him, I did not “almost fail science in college.” My knowledge of climate change comes from keeping up with the scientific literature. I have not seen Al Gore’s movie, so you prattling on about him means very little to me.

Also, I have already shown you data, and you’ve had nothing to say about it. I guess I have to repeat myself:

human emission of greenhouse gases: 7 billion tons per year

current concentration of CO2: 375ppm

highest CO2 concentration in recent geologic history, including about seven full, natural cycles of warming and cooling: 300ppm

By Catha on 12.17.07 7:44 pm

Ok Catha, I will leave the Nobel Peace Prize winning cheerleader for your cause out of it. I just assumed that he would have brought additional credibility to your facts and relational data. How do we know what the CO2 levels were in history? If our levels are so high right now, why aren’t we melting in our Nikes? Have we looked at the CO2 levels and temperature spikes? Have we put these two graphs up next to each other? Without knowing the causes of the CO2 in history and what set it back into equilibrium, how can we call ourselves monsters? Maybe you can tell me how far ahead the CO2 increases were from the temperature spikes. There are many studies that show the temperatures going up 400 to 1900 years before the temperatures spiked. Why is that? Should I assume then that since the temperature is allegedly going up, should I do my part to raise the CO2 even higher to prove them right? Show me the causes and the results. Ice caps are ahead of schedule in formation this year, WHY? Maybe it is because I went to public schools, but I am not ready to buy it lock, stock and barrel.

By BCB on 12.17.07 8:36 pm

Terry show abject ignorance, denial and a total distain for science… probably puts more faith in her creation myths… I don’t know.

FYI Terry, These aren’t “my climate models” … they represent the best available science from the world’s foremost climate labs. Labs from Japan, Germany, the UK, Australia, the US… etc… that you dismiss with one foolish denialist statement. The fact is, these climate models are already a few years old and have understated the warming trend. I am shocked by your continuing denialist ignorance.

By William on 12.18.07 12:28 am

You ask good questions, and I’m not sure why you don’t know the answers to them. We have created the graphs you are looking for and know a great deal about Earth’s history. The atmosphere has changed radically during Earth’s five billion years, and we have trace evidence of ancient atmospheres from rocks, fossils, tree rings, ice cores and more.

We have measured imperfections of our orbit. Earth wobbles ever so slightly on its tilted axis, and it wobbles at measurable frequencies. Geologic evidence showed fairly regular episodes of glaciation and retreat, but no one knew why until astromers measured the obliquity, precession and eccentricity of Earth.

Eccentricity in Earth’s orbit is the primary driver of warming and cooling cycles. There are many other drivers, but they mostly have lesser impacts. Comets and volcanoes can disrupt natural cycles, and we are fortunate to have five billion years of comet collisions behind us. Most of the big ones that are going to hit have hit, and so many have hit that most or all of the world’s oceans are melted comets.

We live in peaceful times geologically and need not worry much about comets or lethal volcanoes like the one that caused a major human die-off 75,000 years ago. The next natural ice ages and sea level rises are thousands of years away and will come gradually.

We has not been gradual is industrialization. There is no historic precedent for what six billion humans can do to the planet.

Over the past million years, CO2 concentration averages a bit under 250ppm, dropping under 200ppm at glacial maximums. It peaks at about 300ppm. By spewing billions of tons of CO2 and methane into the air every year for decades, we have managed to drive the concentration to 375ppm, far outside its natural variation.

No one is sure what the extra CO2 is going to do. That is the problem. Historically, temperature increases driven by astronomical factors cause carbon dioxide concentrations to rise. What is happening under our stewardship is something new: CO2 driving temperature.

Those trying hardest to understand the problem are certain temperature will rise, but how much it rises depends on whether we opt to grow as stewards or reapers of spoils.

Temperature is not what science is worried about. CO2 is the problem. CO2 has spiked to unprecedented levels in the past hundred years.

By Catha on 12.18.07 12:39 am

But due to the newness of the issue, I am not convinced that the CO2 is driving the temp yet. It is a theory. One that might be proven or disproven. If proven, it won’t be the first time I was wrong. But there are so many things that are being presented as facts and then we have the “consensus” about global warming issues that show that there is enough evidence out there to continue discussion and not let the UN, our government and a lot of nutjobs take over our world. I like my beef, I will not run around in a animal skin loin cloth and after looking at what goes into manufacturing a hybrid vehicle and how hard it is to get rid of many of the componenets, I don’t even think that is a viable alternative. And yet, even with Gore out of the picture, the biggest preachers are some of the biggest violators. Which tells me if they aren’t convinced to change their ways, I probably won’t be anytime soon either. Let’s face it, there is a significant number of “zealots” in the eco-movement and that is what the pope was talking about, those that view this as a pseudo-religion.

By BCB on 12.18.07 5:29 am

I guess though, you’ll always have people like BCB who obviously don’t understand the science and argue on the basis of energy industry agendas, lock step conservative ideology, or fear of gov’t control and sacrifice.

These old beef-eating gun-toting truck-driving god-fearing lesser educated republicans are incapable of change or learning. Catha, nice try but your efforts to educate will not be successful here. There is too much dogma, denial, and misinformation.

Even after essentially agreeing with the Pope and Terry Frank, you can see how she treated me. She calls computer models from the world’s foremost climate labs a “fortune telling circus.” How can you compete with ignorance like that?

By William on 12.18.07 10:31 am

William- You’re no longer welcome here. Hang out at your site.

By Terry on 12.18.07 11:02 am

What is interesting is that even these climate models seem to be conservative in their estimates of warming based on current data.

Who do you suppose knows more about climate science? The wingnut deniers like Terry Frank, or the world’s foremost climate labs that are in relative agreement?

Here they are Terry, the world’s foremost climate labs that produce the supercomputer climate models that you call “a fortune telling circus.”

Center for Climate System Research – Japan

National Institute for Environmental Studies – Japan

Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and Analysis – Canada

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – Australia

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research- England

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory- USA

Max Planck Institute für Meteorologie – Germany

National Center for Atmospheric Research- USA

By William on 12.18.07 11:04 am

William, people can eat beef, tote guns, drive trucks and fear God in a world that keeps its emissions in check. Science and energy policy are deep and complicated subjects, and I’m sure we all misunderstand parts of the equation to one degree or another. I agree that the experts deserve more respect than they get, but insulting people will not bring that about.

By Catha on 12.18.07 12:00 pm

I guess we should dial 911 for William after I say this because as a red meat eating, gun toting, pickup truck driving person, this may shock him. I am not against alternative fuels and really wish that they would come up with something to relieve some of the need on foreign oil. I will let the rest of that thought just drop so that I can show you something that I hope works: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=503419&in_page_id=1770

While I don’t know how efficient human fat can be, this world certainly has enough of it and at times, some of it might just be between my own ears. I just thought it was neat and while I am not “hot” for the carbon neutrality that others are, it still is really neat and cannot be bad for the world I live in. Now if I can just light my grill with human fat…….

By BCB on 12.19.07 12:20 pm

Catha, thank you for keeping this debate civil. Disagreements are fine, but self-important individuals like William make all of us look less than human.

Oh, William, please inform me of what my opinions should be on an entire range of issues because you are so much smarter than me… Let me know if you wanna actually roll out the creds sometime. Some of us “lesser educated” are likely far more qualified accross a wide range of issues than you give us credit for (or you in general). If you are so certain your ideas are that superior, William, why not actually debate/discuss on the merits of your ideas instead of blindly attacking anyone you disagree with (behind the ubscuring curtain of the internet no less. How brave…).

By Curt on 12.19.07 4:57 pm

I thought I had explained to Willy why computer modeling was “wobbly science”. But he continues to post these models at sites everywhere, complete with links to Media Matters and the same tired graphs. If you talk about opposing viewpoints, he simply brings up that they’re all in the pocket of big oil. You can read our argument here.

And by the way, Terry, that photo of the stranded polar bears? It was taken in the summer.

By DocattheAutopsy on 12.21.07 2:41 am

Sorry. Try this link.

By DocattheAutopsy on 12.21.07 2:41 am

OK. That’s not working. Sorry for the multiple comments (wish there was a preview button).

http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/you-are-what-funds-you/

By DocattheAutopsy on 12.21.07 2:42 am

Here’s someone else who thinks that “global warming” is a substitute for religion, Archbishop George Pell:
http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/pell_jan08.html

By Don Schenk on 01.12.08 11:19 am

[...] the Pope is a skeptic Pope Benedict XVI is warning that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm edivence and not dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman [...]

By December, 2007 Archive « Right Minded Online on 08.08.08 7:32 pm