Angry U.S. Republicans Rip Pope Francis Over Global Warming

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/angry-us-republicans-tell-pope-francis-to-%E2%80%98stick-with-his-job-and-we%E2%80%99ll-stick-with-ours%E2%80%99/ar-BBl5n5E

c.d.

[Ginger]

Certainly there's more of faith than science to the belief in anthropogenic global warming. IMHO, the Pope is a fitting spokesman for it.

[Scott Nelson]

No, there's more science than faith in anthropogenic global warming.

[GUT]

Oh a fight over global warming.

[Wickerman]

I don't know what there is to fight about, it's here. It isn't a case of belief, I think the belief comes in when people talk about the cause.

Science has demonstrated beyond any doubt that we are the cause of excess CO2, Rather selfishly I admit, I'm glad I won't be around when things get really bad.
If it takes a Pope to make them see sense, then so be it.

[c.d.]

Check out youtube videos where Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about climate change deniers. He says that it is a scientific question and that only scientific data needs to be and should be considered. In other words, it is not a political debate nor a philosophical or moral one. According to Tyson, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and on the side of climate change. He acknowledges that there are some scientists who disagree but says that is to be expected.

Man I like that guy.

I also like Christopher Hitchens' take on it. He says that if you are a climate change denier then you have to be absolutely right because we don't have another planet on which to run the experiment.

Really love Hitchens as well.

I also love how religious climate deniers say don't worry. It is in God's hands and he will take care of it when it gets out of hand. Right. Just like he stepped in during the plague and the Holocaust.


c.d.

[GUT]

Check out youtube videos where Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about climate change deniers. He says that it is a scientific question and that only scientific data needs to be and should be considered. In other words, it is not a political debate nor a philosophical or moral one. According to Tyson, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and on the side of climate change. He acknowledges that there are some scientists who disagree but says that is to be expected.

Man I like that guy.

I also like Christopher Hitchens' take on it. He says that if you are a climate change denier then you have to be absolutely right because we don't have another planet on which to run the experiment.

Really love Hitchens as well.

I also love how religious climate deniers say don't worry. It is in God's hands and he will take care of it when it gets out of hand. Right. Just like he stepped in during the plague and the Holocaust.


c.d.

Now without starting a fight, that is also a different issue.

ie climate change v's global warming.

I have also not heard any climate changers saying it's in God's hands but maybe we move in different circles.

[c.d.]

Hello GUT,

My understanding is that climate change and global warming are different names for basically the same thing.

The religious argument (and here I am talking about religion mixed with politics) is that it is incredibly arrogant to think that humans can alter or correct something that has been put in place by God. And that basically he has things under control.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

The name change was to avoid getting bogged down in debates which concern the fact that some regions of the planet at various times of the year will get cooler than normal while other regions heat up. There will be temperature fluctuations across the globe, as opposed to a gradual uniform increase.
The overall trend though is, upwards.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, in other words, there is such as thing as global warming, which is exacerbated from human beings continually emitting carbon-based waste products into the atmosphere.

[sdreid]

50% of the time, climate change is good!

[kensei]

A few random thoughts on this subject (and I'm hardly an expert):

One, I think the name change from global warming to climate change was to offset all the people who inevitably take every cold winter or big snow to mock the very idea of global warming as if it's that simple.

Two, I think there's a mindset out there that if it could be demonstrated that man is not causing the problem, then the problem doesn't exist. Personally I think climate change is something that happens cyclically, always has and always will, that it was happening millions of years before man existed on the planet but that this time around it just might be being nudged along a little faster than usual by human activity but would still be happening even if that wasn't the case. I've heard that the active volcanoes of the world have far more of an impact on the atmosphere than anything man does.

And three, for the most extreme alarmists out there, calm down. Global warming does not mean that Earth is going to become a burned-out cinder and we're all going to die. A new ice age would be a much more serious problem.

[GUT]

A few random thoughts on this subject (and I'm hardly an expert):

One, I think the name change from global warming to climate change was to offset all the people who inevitably take every cold winter or big snow to mock the very idea of global warming as if it's that simple.

Two, I think there's a mindset out there that if it could be demonstrated that man is not causing the problem, then the problem doesn't exist. Personally I think climate change is something that happens cyclically, always has and always will, that it was happening millions of years before man existed on the planet but that this time around it just might be being nudged along a little faster than usual by human activity but would still be happening even if that wasn't the case. I've heard that the active volcanoes of the world have far more of an impact on the atmosphere than anything man does.

And three, for the most extreme alarmists out there, calm down. Global warming does not mean that Earth is going to become a burned-out cinder and we're all going to die. A new ice age would be a much more serious problem.

And speaking of an "Ice Age" that was the prediction in the 70s.

[Robert]

Let's keep god out of it. I bought two stars from him. One eventually burned out and the other eventually blew up.

[c.d.]

It has been pointed out that even if climate change is cyclical that all of our crops and current lifestyles coincide with a certain temperature range.

Even if the earth isn't going to become a burned out cinder in the next 15 minutes we are still seeing the economic effect of natural disasters like droughts and increased snow fall in winter. Food prices go up and some cities are spending a huge portion of their budgets on snow removal alone.

So the question is do we wait to address the problem until we are absolutely sure of our data.

I have no problem with anybody who expresses scepticism as to the validity of the idea of climate change but when they simply dismiss it as total b.s. then I have to believe that they are not looking at it from a scientific perspective but have some agenda of their own.

c.d.