Pope Francis blesses the crowd as he recites the Angelus noon prayer from the window of his studio overlooking St.Peter's Square, at the Vatican, on July 1, 2018. Francis has lamented intensified attacks in southern Syria, asking that people be spared more suffering. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Pope warns climate change turning Earth into desert, garbage

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis urged governments to make good on their commitments to curb global warming, warning that climate change, continued unsustainable development and rampant consumption threaten to turn the Earth into a vast pile of "rubble, deserts and refuse."

Francis made the appeal at a Vatican conference marking the third anniversary of his landmark environmental encyclical, "Praise Be." The document, meant to spur action at the 2015 Paris climate conference, called for a paradigm shift in humanity's relationship with Mother Nature.

In his remarks on Friday (July 6), Francis urged governments to honor their Paris commitments and said institutions like the IMF and World Bank had important roles to play in encouraging reforms promoting sustainable development.

"There is a real danger that we will leave future generations only rubble, deserts and refuse," he warned.

The Paris accord, reached by 195 countries, seeks to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change by curbing global greenhouse gas emissions via individual, nonbinding national plans. President Trump has said the U.S. will pull out of the accord negotiated by his predecessor unless he can get a better deal.

Friday's conference was the latest in a series of Vatican initiatives meant to impress a sense of urgency about global warming and the threat it poses in particular to the world's poorest and most marginalized people.

Recently, Francis invited oil executives and investors to the Vatican for a closed-door conference, where he urged them to find alternatives to fossil fuels. He warned that climate change was a challenge of "epochal proportions."

And next year, Francis has called a three-week synod, or meeting of bishops, specifically to address the church's response to the ecological crisis in the Amazon, where deforestation threatens what he has called the "lung" of the planet and the indigenous peoples who live there.

"It grieves us to see the lands of indigenous peoples expropriated and their cultures trampled on by predatory schemes and by new forms of colonialism, fueled by the culture of waste and consumerism," Francis said.

Comments

  1. Well according to our esteemed president, global warming is just a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, and besides, God’s going to rapture up all the “good Christians” anyway, leaving behind the evil heathens to deal with the aftermath of climate catastrophe, so it’s all good – right?

  2. The Holy Father succums to the pagan religion of global warming. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of school children are brainwashed yearly to believe the global warming hoax.
    Pope Francis, teach your followers to worry about the next life; not this one.

  3. You up-voted yourself. How charming.

  4. Due to the increased work economy we are now increasing our output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. So no relief on that front. We’ll have to deal with the effects down the road.

  5. Thanks for spell checking; I could use a good copy editor. Send me your resume.
    Tge gobal warming fraud has been driven into kids heads for the past twenty-plus years by the liberal school teachers. The kids sure can puke out why we shouldn’t use plastic bags, but can’t solve a basic word problem.

  6. Well, if it will help the situation, I’ll upvote Parker as well. Upvote!

  7. I get why some people choose to bury their heads in the sand on global warming. Like with the flat-earthers, they see what they want to see regardless of the facts. So be it.

    But I’ve never understood the notion that global warming is a massive hoax. To claim that is to not only show ignorance about climatology, but also the nature of hoaxes. Hoaxes are dreamed up by small groups of people in back rooms. Global warming was concluded independently by hundreds of scientists representing many different disciplines and using various methodologies over a long period of time. Agree or disagree as is your prerogative, but it simply isn’t the kind of thing you can pull off with a hoax.

    By the way, it is precisely the pope’s job to teach his followers (Christ’s followers, actually) to be concerned about this life first and foremost. If they do that, the next one will take care of itself.

  8. Good ole Pope Francis, doing his sales-pitch as the poster-boy for the Global Warming Cult. Especially he loves to sell the Paris Agreement. (The PA is pretty much like the Gospel for him. Except he’s more passionate about the PA.)

    Francis does NOT want to discuss the negative impact of taking fossil-fuels out of the hands of poor people and families. Their daily lives and opportunities (and staying out of abject poverty!), are made do-able thanks to fossil fuels. But the Cult doesn’t wanna hear about it, so Francis doesn’t talk about it.

    But that’s not all. This pope is directly selling the costly, bottomless-pit Paris Agreement. But are there some, umm, scientific problems with this Cult Agreement? YES. Big scientific problems with the PA are real, folks.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/scientific-argument-against-paris-climate-agreement

  9. I get why some people choose to bury their heads in the sand on global warming.

    They want certainty, they want a cause, they want to be justified, and so like the flat-earthers and the Malthusians, they rally ‘round the nonsense.

    But I’ve never understood the notion that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

    Roughly 12,000 years ago the earth hit one of its regular low temperature points and with regularity and minor glitches – the cold spell in Europe roughly 500 years ago – has been heading back to what earth considers “normal” since; no mysteries, not CO2, no “the sky is falling”.

    In the face of the mantra that “Global warming was concluded independently by hundreds of scientists representing many different disciplines and using various methodologies over a long period of time.”, the facts say otherwise:

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/03/climate-change-lawsuit-features-tutorials-and-role-reversal/

    The Holy Father’s charism, according to the teachings of his church, is to fulfill a Petrine role as head of the College of bishops and to teach on faith and morals, confirming the brethren.

    Friday’s conference was completely focused on the secular issue of allegations of global warming and alleged threats it poses in particular to the world’s poorest and most marginalized people.

    Unless the Holy Father has recently received the charisms of scientific infallibility and prescience, he would do better to zero in on some issues such as restoring order to the German episcopate and deciding how to communicate his church’s teachings.

  10. The purpose of the pope is to shepard the church and instruct the faithful about the teachings of Christ and the church. There is no mention in the Bible nor catechism of the church which mentions global warming or any other social justice issue as a means for salvation. The pope has enough to worry about within the walls of the church and should focus on strengthening the faith of the flock.
    Hoax may be a poor choice of words; thus the reason why I need Eblabulus to be my copy editor.
    There are many scientists that refute global warming and have stated their conclusions.
    The problem I have is that this has become (one of the) religions of the left and has been used to brainwash a generation of kids.
    I am all for talking about using the earths resources wisely; but let’s meet in the middle.

  11. “There are many scientists that refute global warming and have stated their conclusions.”
    But that’s the kicker, ain’t it? The GW Cult decided that wide-open censorship & bullying tactics were the best way to achieve “scientific consensus.” So that’s exactly what has happened.

    “Dear Professor (David) Henderson,
    I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expected such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”

    — Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, multiple European science awards and appointments, 225 published papers on climate and meteorology. (2014 resignation letter, quoted via Cato Institute.)

  12. Science isn’t a matter of democracy. There is no middle. There is only what the data reveals. Notwithstanding pseudo-scientists who work for right-wing think tanks, no reputable climatologist that I’m aware of disputes global warming. If you wish to cite some, please do.

  13. The data reveals the Earth is warming and has been for about 12,000 years with the usual ups and downs in the upward treand.

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

    If science is not a matter of democracy, then the only question is whether man-caused global warming is a fact, not a “consensus”.

    It is not.

    And the only way to test it will take somewhere between 100 and 10,000 years.

    So, we can can the “science” spin on this forthwith.

  14. The GWPF is an organization founded by right-wing economists, not scientists. It has as much credibility on global warming as the doctors on the payroll of the tobacco companies did on the link between smoking and lung cancer.

    Dr. Bengtsson’s opinions on global warming were disputed by the majority of his colleagues. That’s the way science works. A consensus arises from the predominant opinion of scientists doing independent research. If Dr. Bengtsson felt picked on because of that, that’s a pity. But the fact remains that he’s alive and well and nobody in his family has been threatened by the sinister “GW cult.”

  15. No floydlee, there is no organized conspiracy or hoax. It is a consensus reach by the overwhelming number of climate scientists. Are the predictions accurate? That remains to be seen. One thing underestimated is the warming of the arctic and the more rapid melting of Greenland ice. The underlying basis, the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, is indisputable. The results are based on the accuracy of the models – they might have errors. Time will tell. But to ignore it and call it a hoax is inane.

  16. Yes, but skepticism is warranted. The concerns are safeety,cost and scale. It is likely that decreasing the production of global warming gases would cost less and be more effective.

  17. Your reference to the libertarian Cato Institute helps to explain how you can post such arguments. Your belief system sounds like you are getting your information from a cult.

  18. That’s a nasty road to go down.

  19. As opposed to the left-wing pseudo scientists that work for NASA and any university looking for a federal grant?

  20. The pope doesn’t need either your permission or your approval in order to conduct his ministry as he sees fit. He is free to address any and every topic he chooses to his heart’s content and there’s not a thing you can do about it, except deal with it.

  21. You are usually not very credible, but this is disgusting. The opposing scientists you referenced are part of a well funded propaganda campaign by oil and other businesses and multimillion dollar donars. I think you already know that.

  22. The brainwashing by you and those who create that propaganda will likely cause many of the grandchildren of those school children to die.

  23. These opposing “scientists” could use the scientific method to disprove the theory. They know this, but won’t. because only the truth would be the result and this would add support to the theory of global warming.

  24. Many of them are dead and have been for years.

    It is unlikely that their research was part of “a well funded propaganda campaign by oil and other businesses”.

    Nor does your blanket condemnation suffice.

    There is substantial evidence that the Earth is coming out of a cold period which began roughly 100,000 years ago, that the “normal” temperature is higher than the current one, that the last cold snap of 12,000 years ago allowed people and animals to cross what is now the Bering Strait, that ocean levels are still lower than “normal”, and that with or without mankind the warming trend will continue.

    But there are no government grants in that, eh?

  25. Ok. Remember that when this or any other pope sides against mainstreaming homosexuality in the church.

  26. Nice – throw the tobacco companies in despite the fact that no one else argued about the ill effects of tobacco and it has nothing at all to do with the topic.

    Why not get into lobotomies and Walter Freeman, MD?

    I am sure you know the logical fallacy you committed with that one.

    Swing this way or that, you continue to pretend that science consists of “consensus”.

    In a word, “no”.

    There was a “consensus” that dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

    There was a “consensus” fifty years ago we were entering an ice age.

    Science consists of hypotheses tested in experiments. It does not consists of consensus and plausible computer models.

    Both of those fall into the “correlation is not causation” category.

  27. To use the scientific method, which involves experiments, we’ll need 100 to 10,000 years.

    Personally I can wait.

  28. An intelligent person cannot honestly deny global warming caused by CO2 and Methane. Global temperatures have varied considerably over the millennia, but not at the rapid rate since industrialization. For this reason species are dying more rapidly than at the time of the meteor in Mexico 65 million years ago.

  29. Indeed.

    And unless he is speaking on a matter of faith and morals, no one in his or her right mind should pay any more attention than to any other layman’s personal opinion.

  30. It is not advantages for children to be indoctrinated with a suspicion about science.

  31. To you I think most facts are opinion. That’s true of our president too.

  32. Regardless of what this or any future pope may say about any subject, I would never be so foolish as to suggest that he has no right to say it. Only a fool would do that.

  33. In this case “man-made climate change” IS opinion.

  34. That’s why the fossil fuel industries like Evangelicals

  35. An intelligent person cannot honestly accept that the very natural and continuing warming of the earth, predating many by thousands of years, is cased by CO2 and methane.

    See how that works?

    Those who disagree with you are defined as not intelligent, and you don’t need any facts at all.

  36. You have as little understanding as you do respect for science. If you and your nay-sayers are successful it may be over in a century. By then I will be dead and you may be raptured.

  37. All Dr. Bengtsson needs to do is prove his hypothesis if he knows how. If he doesn’t his opinion is of no value in science.

  38. It will be especially tough for the multitudinous offspring of all the “family values” breeders. With no offspring of my own, I have no such worries.

  39. You have as little understanding as you do respect for the scientific method.

    You’re the perfect foil for the correlation = causation fallacy that has the bean sprouts and sandals set running around yelling “The sky is falling! They sky is falling!”

    May you pick up at one time all the reports that contradict that picayune computer model and may you be ruptured.

  40. Again you sound like your president. If you don’t know or are wrong, just spout a lot of garbage. Its easier to keep silent than to point out all the flaws in your statements. And maybe someone will believe your alternative facts.

    The scientists that make up the consensus have tested in experiments or studied and critiqued experiments by other qualified scientists.

  41. And neither do the rest of us that another generation of Elagabalus is skipping down the pike.

  42. Unless you have some heretofore hidden scientific knowledge, you’re just spouting a lot of garbage.

    Yes, you would be better off keeping silent.

    Consensus is NOT science.

    NO relevant experiments have been done.

    What we are dealing with is a very tiny set of measurements and a computer model in a field which is poorly understood and in which new evidence is arising almost daily.

  43. You don’t understand science and wouldn’t have any way to recognize what is pseudo. Without government agencies like NASA and great universities, science would not happen in this country. This wouldn’t bother you. I’m sure you could find someone else to blame for our lost greatness.

  44. I think you’re a layman. I’m not a Christian, but I would pay more attention to the Pope. Isn’t concern for the well being of humanity in the future a moral issue?

  45. Quack science is not an area the Pope is equipped to either discern or advise upon.

    According to his denomination’s beliefs and teaching, the humanity of the future will experience the end of the world and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead, and create a new Earth.

    I would assume the new Earth will not experience global warming.

  46. To be skeptical about a scientific finding is necessary. It is also necessary to understand what you are skeptical of. But some religious education now is teaching children not to respect science or scientists. That will have a very negative affect on our country’s future. Dismissing real scientific theories as “scientism” is popular on the right and detrimental to our society.

  47. Your president does that too. Repeat a lie often enough and many people will believe it.

  48. We’re not discussing a scientific “finding”

    We’re discussing a scientific theory.

    Buying a scientific theory that could result in world-wide catastrophe if erroneous and acted upon is detrimental to our society.

    In fact it’s nuts.

  49. If you live through it, let us know.

  50. You think HE sounds like he’s getting his information from a cult?

  51. Right.

    It’s a vast right wing conspiracy.

  52. And perhaps only a fool would listen to him when he’s out of his lane.

  53. I think maybe your nuts. Check out what a scientific theory is.

  54. I blame Obama for our lost greatness. Don’t worry, we’re getting hugely, greater every day.

  55. We’ve been through this before.

    Unless and until a theory is proven, it is hypothetical.

    It remains hypothetical until it is proven by experiment.

    In this case a very tiny number of measurements in a very poorly understood area – the earth’s climate – has been modeled.

    The model fits that tiny bit of data.

    It is possible with more data and a better understanding of the earth’s climate and what drives it that model would not fit the data.

    To gain some idea of what sort of handle they have on climate, go to AccuWeather and take a look at the prediction for a month from now in any area of the world where climate changes.

    Write it down.

    Check what you wrote down with what’s happening a month from now.

    In any case, concluding the theory has been “proven” because the model and the data correlate is simply another version of the correlation=causation fallacy.

  56. Obama was a disappointing failure. We are still a failed state and going down the wrong road.

  57. I don’t use the word “hoax”, but it’s appropriate to use the word “Cult” to describe the Global Warming Religion and the clear behavior of its devotees. I don’t use the word “conspiracy”, but this GW extremism really does look organized.

    Even a GW-supporting Obama Admin scientist, Dr. Noelle Metting, got a big GW surprise from her Cult Prez. In her 2014 DoE testimony to Congress, she accidentally snitched some info that countered Obama’s GW sales-pitch. Next stop for her: The Unemployment Line. (A congressional committee also found that the Obama Admin had been intimidating DoE staff to further its “climate change” agenda. Duhhhhh.)

    There’s no scientific consensus without an open flow of info. “Chilling Effect” is NOT “scientific consensus.”
    Meanwhile, you say the GW models might have errors. Shoot, Dr. Bengtsson said as much against the IPCC global-warming gangsters. You see what THAT got him, right? Worse, the Paris Cult Agreement puts tens of trillions of tax $$$$ at stake, off of Sketchy-Scam computer models. And still no safety nets for “fossil-fuel” poor people.

    Finally, you said something was “indisputable.” So here’s a scientist who went to Congress and disputed it:
    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

  58. He didn’t see himself as a disappointing failure.

    That says a lot.

  59. Ah yes, the Global Warming Policy Forum, which occasionally posts a little scientific data that the biased Libbies at CNN and NBC don’t wanna tell Americans about. Like global sea ice making a comeback already. See the picture:

    https://www.thegwpf.com/global-sea-ice-rebounds-one-million-square-kilometer-higher-than-last-year/

    Dr. Bengtsson wanted to engage in dialogue with the GWPF scholars and writers. And he thought he was safe to try it, because he has all these big science awards, big science appointments, and 225 climate & meteorology publications — a phenomenal science record that NO poster in this forum, (myself and RCW included), has any chance of matching.

    But Bengtsson was wrong. You get in a Cult; you get caught talking with folks outside the Cult; then the Cult plucks your feathers. The GW Cult knows how to fry your drumsticks good!!

  60. And naturally you get to be the one who decides when he’s out of his “lane.”

  61. Finally, an admission from you that gay people are born that way.

  62. How exactly were Dr. Bengtsson’s drumsticks fried? Seriously, how? What was done to him that was so sinister? How was he threatened? The answer is, he wasn’t.

    Dr. Bengtsson was challenged by his peers. That’s all. He didn’t like the level to which he was challenged and he balked at it, but it’s nonsense to characterize it as some kind of mass persecution.

    There was no reason to silence Dr.Bengtsson and he was not, in fact, silenced. He remains alive and well in Sweden, free to publish his research whenever he likes and free to talk to anyone who’ll listen.

  63. More so for the younger generation.

  64. We’ll adapt and live through it.

  65. Did you read your own condemnation of Dr. Bengtsson?

    Where did YOU get your impression?

    Don’t play the perpetual ingénue.

  66. Doesn’t his opponents have to prove their hypothesis first?

    Hint: they haven’t.

  67. Behold the voice of Christian compassion.

  68. I don’t confuse compassion with unreality.

  69. And you’re a gay one, Elagabalus.

  70. You may want to re-read Dr. Bengtsson’s letter that I high-lighted above. He was very, VERY specific about the nasty little Global Warming Cult games, was he not?

    He correctly perceived that his prominent scientific career was under genuine attack, and that even his own health and safety was becoming an issue. Lotta stress on the table, when people are trying to take you down. So he resigned from a group of scholars and writers whose articles and graphs seriously make sense to rational people (and again I provided a quickie example above.)

    Cults hate independent thinkers. They DO things to independent thinkers. Dr. Bengtsson found out too late. Former Obama Admin scientist Dr. Noelle Metting, another in-general GW supporter like Bengtsson, likewise found out too late. Cults will Mash Your Potatoes!!

  71. Fried drumsticks. Mashed potatoes. Are you hungry as well as paranoid?

  72. Here’s the felonious cult-betraying thought-crime that the expert Dr. Bengtsson committed:

    “We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough.
    What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver, and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues, it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals.

    The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.”

  73. There are many well paid by right wing doners and think tanks that are “scientists” but not climate experts, that are alive and well, spouting denier propaganda. They are probably the sources of your posts.
    No one doubts that the earths warming and cooling rate has been changing over the millennia There are many varying reasons for this, most of which are known.

    This has nothing to do with the known facts that since the industrial revolution we have been releasing larger and larger amounts of carbon dioxide and methane warming gases due to fossil fuels and, for methane, cattle.

    The concentration of these gases in the upper atmosphere has been measured and the method is known by which they are raising the global temperature at an alarming rate. Carbon dioxide remains in he atmosphere for more than a century. Because of this, even when, or if, we stop releasing these gasses the planet will continue to warm for decades.

    With ice cores the temperature of the earth had been measured over several thousand years. The amount of these gases and oxygen has also been determined. There is correlation between the amount of these gases and temperature rise.

    There were many other causes of temperature variations in the past. These include massive volcanic arruption releasing large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide. Large amounts of dust in the atmosphere due to collisions with stellar bodies. A massive extinction can deplete the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The rate global temperature is changing exceeds that even at the time of major extinctions. The effects already are causing extinctions of both animal and plant species at a rate which is greater than former extinctions. This is due to the rate of temperature change. Their habitat is destroyed faster than they can adapt.

  74. You are trying to create facts by repeating lies. This is a method of the trolls.

  75. Your dislike for the fact that other people have opinions does not make those who disagree with you “trolls”.

    Your cult-like faith in a half dozen data points and a computer model does not constitute facts.

    The fact that the computer model is theoretical and that the data points it correlates to a theory does not make suggesting it is not convincing lying.

    In short you have an opinion, to which you’re entitled.

    What you’re not entitled to is to call those who disagree with you and don’t buy it liars.

  76. The level of knowledge that we have is picayune.

    Despite the argle bargle, your beliefs are speculation.

  77. Tell that to government agencies. They believe spraying all kinds of chemicals into the atmosphere is more effective.

  78. Aw c’mon. Readers love those Kentucky Fried Chicken analogies, especially around mealtime!!

  79. Okay, fair enough. Go forth to lick your fingers in peace.

  80. The statement about half a dozen data points and a computer is not true. You either made it up or its a lie. To claim something you don’t know is a fact I consider a lie.

  81. Actually it is about a dozen measurement sites and a computer model.

    You consider me a liar. I consider you a gullible putz.

  82. Of course not, we know that has been due to many causes, although the composition of the atmosphere has had effects over the long period. My statement, as you know, was about the rapid rate since industrialization.

    Those who disagree about the reality of human caused global warming endangering humanity need to have an explanation countering the evidence. Opinions are not facts. Your misleading statements will cause some people who are not skeptical to dismiss this problem which is obviously your aim.

  83. They will only listen to their corporate friends that want to sell the chemicals.

  84. I don’t need a thing beyond noting that theory remains a theory until clear and convincing evidence proves it to be true and excludes all other explanations.

    Until then, as you note, opinions (which is what hypotheses are) are not facts.

    My statements in disagreement are not as dangerous as your ill-founded claim that these theories are facts.

  85. If your referring to the fact that the warming earth is a danger to humanity is quack science, I would say you are one.
    I don’t know this, but I expect some Catholics, unlike most Evangelilcals are concerned about the earth their children must life in if the Second Coming takes a while longer. I doubt that new Earth will experience anything. In spite of his theology, I appreceate the Popes postion as only global cooperation can help with this problem.

  86. Certainly a warming or freezing earth is potentially a danger to humanity.

    Which, if either, is happening and exactly why is still an open question.

  87. I am surprised that you don’t know the meaning of scientific theory. You claimed earlier to understand the Scientific Method. You can’t if you don’t know what a scientific theory is and how one is formed.

    Try to read and understand this Wikipedia article that explains it well.

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

  88. We have been through this before.

    Yes, I understand the scientific method.

    I also understand the difference between scientific hypothesis and a tested and verified theory.

    You don’t.

  89. The only speculation I see is that denier propaganda is your source of posts. I pointed out the speculation by using “probably”. The rest of my statements are not speculative, just factual information that doesn’t support your agenda.

  90. I am about to block you, just to let you know.

    I have no problem if you believe earth is visited by aliens.

    Where the line exists, and you’re crossing it, is calling people who do not agree with you names, citing imaginary “denier propaganda”, and pretending they have an agenda beyond trying not to get sucked into what is quickly becoming a cult.

    In fact you’re coming off like a mix of Spuddie and Karl Marx on a bad day.

    Give it some thought and consider S T F U.

  91. In theory that’s true but in reality some people do listen to him. Ditto for Hollywood celebrities – they have an audience for global warming and politics.

  92. Revelation 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.”

    You assume wrong. Without seas our climate will be horrendous. Of course, Revelation may just be mythology.

  93. The warming due to increased CO2 is not an open question. Its the effect on our climate that is where any controversy will remain. We have dozens of models making disparate predictions due to our limited computing capabilities and our imperfect understanding of climate factors. But the warming in the arctic has exceeded predictions and the rate of the melting of the ice has increased. We didn’t take into account underwater rivers, dark pollution on the ice absorbing heat and bacteria colonies feeding on it. We haven’t factored in clouds very well. We haven’t factored in vast tracts of melted permafrost and their contribution of methane. In science things are rarely settled but we can’t ignore the predictions – especially if they come true.

  94. Of course we know that with lower CO2 levels the earth was much warmer millions of years ago then it currently is.

    Why?

    We are not sure.

    Years ago I was walking around Casa Grande, the abandoned pueblo complex in Arizona where a large population once lived, with irrigation, farming, and so on.

    The area became arid, the civilization collapsed, there are signs of cannibalism at the end.

    Why?

    We are not sure.

    We do know that the earth began a period of very cold roughly 100,000 years ago and has been coming out of it in waves since, the last cold wave beginning to end roughly 11-12,000 years ago at which time wooly mammoths still roamed the earth.

    We are not sure why the ice age came or why it is ending.

    We haven’t factored a lot of things in because frankly the science is not up to the task.

    I plan on staying calm and not joining the “sky is falling” cult.

Leave a Comment