Skip to main content

Global warming most definitely not a hoax - a scientist's rebuttal Comments

At Catholic Online we often receive letters and emails commenting on our content. Today we received a strong rebuttal to our interview with Dr. Mark Hendrickson of the Center for Vision and Values. This response comes from Dr. John Abraham, a scientist who works at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, a Catholic University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 21 Comments

  1. Phil
    11 months ago

    "a seemingly reputable person (adjunct faculty member Mark Hendrickson)"

    If Mark Hendrickson is Catholic Online's idea of a credible person to speak on Climate Change then that is a joke... that guy has zero credibility, is not a scientist and backs absolutely nothing he says with any kind of actual evidence.

  2. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    Richard, please provide a citation from the peer-reviewed science literature for your claim that doubling CO2 will only have 1/2 the impact of current levels of CO2, and doubling it again will have only 1/4 the current effect?

    - How much warming would be caused by just 1ppm CO2?
    - If we double that to 2ppm, would that be just half the effect of 1ppm? If not, then at what threshold would we start getting diminishing returns?
    - After diminish returns kicked in, was it instantly just 1/2 the effect for each doubling? Or is the reduced effect itself a function of how much is already in the air?

    If anyone has peer reviewed research in the professional literature to back up your claim I would very much like to read it!

    Steve Elfelt

  3. Marshall Connolly
    1 year ago

    Hello Mr. Savage,

    That was a lengthy and well written rebuttal. I haven't got the time to answer in any detail, but I promise you I did read every word of it.

    For the record, I have never been a member of any Catholic student or activist organization outside of my parish. In fact, I attended secular institutions all my life. Although I was born Catholic, most of my Catholicism is self-taught and acquired from books and classes I taught to build my knowledge. My parents were quite lukewarm on their faith, whereas I took to it like a duck to water. I would have become a priest, except I really wanted to get married. It would be super-cool to become a deacon someday, I think. I have a long way to go before I get there. It's more likely I may join an order of brothers someday.

    I hold a number of modern beliefs within the realm of science, such as belief that the Big Bang was the likely physical creative event by which God created the universe, that we were formed evolution by means of natural selection over millions of years, and that we must practice Creation Care. I am very fond of science, especially astronomy.

    Personally, I am a libertarian, however I am a Catholic before I am anything else and the solemn instruction of my Church trumps everything, even my personal opinions. I have absolute trust in the correctness of my Holy Church and the promises of Christ.

    I do not have any specific advocacy with regards to energy policy. Generally, I think modern projects including energy, food, and health care, should be accessible to all people who want them. Not every society wants these things, and the modern costs and influences associated with them. We must respect the will of these people.

    We must also respect Creation, for God has demonstrated that we can do great evil and great harm as a result of our agency. I can only imagine His disapproval at some of our activities!

    Mr. Savage, I probably agree much more with the readers of COL on many, many issues than some think. If we met in Church, we would have many friendly conversations on topics which we agree. I hope you have enjoyed following this series of articles. I will continue to cover this issue as we go forward and I will keep an eye out for your posts.

    Bests wishes to you and all my readers, happy and unhappy both!

  4. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Dear Mr. Connolly,

    Thank you for stating your opinions; thank you also for your intent to interview Dr. Spencer.

    I'm happy to agree with you that we "...should be responsible stewards of creation and manage the Earth's resources for the benefit of all...." I'm a meteorologist, so I have enough knowledge of the environment (meteorology, oceanography, geology) to appreciate the beauty of the natural laws we are privileged to see in these sciences. I'm also an engineer, so I agree with you (and Dr. Abraham, and most people) in disapproval of wanton waste and inefficiency. I recycle glass containers and food cans (tin as well as aluminum); I drive a fuel efficient (24 mpg) small pickup; I've planted more than 100 pine trees on my five-acre property. I try to plan my driving to be efficient and accomplish multiple errands on one trip. I keep the house cool (66 F) in winter; I use a whole house fan and a swamp cooler (evaporative cooler) in Summer.These are more energy efficient than air conditioning. None of that makes me any better than any other conscientious person.

    I disagree with you that "...the poor...suffer most from natural destruction." A bit over-simplified, I think; the poor suffer most from their inability to deal with natural disasters; as scripture says, "God sends his rain on the just and the unjust" (always a favorite verse for a weatherman). Consider Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people got in their cars and left New Orleans ahead of Katrina; hundreds died because they had no transportation to allow them to escape - while a fleet of school busses sat idle in their parking lots. The same lesson applies to Bangladesh in November 1970, when tropical storm Bhola, with a 10 meter (thirty feet!) storm surge, moved into that low-lying country. The official death toll was 500,000; thousands had no warning, because they had no radio to receive the broadcasts. I remember it well, because it was incomprehensible to me (a weather forecaster) that so many could be killed in a storm that was forecast days ahead. Even in this century, tropical storms and hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico kill the poor on the borders of the Gulf - who don't get the warning or can't get away. That's not a climate or weather or even weather forecast problem. It's a practical, i.e., economic problem. More on tropical cyclones and Bangladesh at

    I agree with you that we have an obligation... "to provide all the people of the world clean food, water, air, and electricity." I can include electricity in that list because carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant - though everyone on the Green side of this debate claims it is. I agree, BTW, that smokestack emissions ought to be cleansed of mercury, nitrous oxides, and real pollutants. Since you say "Even if climate change is a myth..." let's discuss CO2 a little more.

    CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas (ignorant people continue to call it "carbon") that is essential for all life on our Planet Earth. That's one of those beautiful natural laws I mentioned above. It's currently a little less than 400 parts by million. If you reach out and grab 100,000 air molecules, thirty-nine (39) of them will be CO2; humans have added eleven (11) of them since the beginning of the Industrial Age (i.e., ~1780). Every knowledgable person agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), i.e., it absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, one of the ways Earth releases heat to maintain thermal stability. The beautiful part is the symbiosis of plants and animals; we exhale CO2, and inhale oxygen (O2). Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2, producing food (carbohydrate) in the process. Sorry to remind you, but every cell in your body contains carbon that was once part of the atmospheric CO2. Because we humans have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere, this is a greener planet than it was 200 years ago - or 20 years ago. NOAA's multispectral weather satellites (and others) measure the color of the Earth, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Yes, we're making the world greener - and growing more food - as a result of CO2 "pollution."

    So, why do well-meaning people (like you) call CO2 a pollutant? They apparently believe it "traps heat in the atmosphere" (Tom Friedman of the NY Times says so often). This, of course, is mistaken; nothing traps heat - that's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What does it really do? CO2 slows the escape of IR, through the atmosphere, into space. About 16% of Earth's IR goes right on through, untouched by any GHG. The other 84% is absorbed by GHGs, mostly by water vapor (H2O), because there's a lot more H2O (between 1000 and 4000 of those 100,000 air molecules you've got in your hand). Water vapor also absorbs across a broad IR spectrum; CO2 absorbs in a single line in Earth's IR spectrum, about 5% of it, near 14.7 micrometers. Whichever GHG absorbs a given IR photon, it quickly emits a new photon with an energy and wavelength appropriate to its temperature. The crucial point is that the new radiation is emitted isotropically - that is, equally in all directions, both up and down.

    So, originally we had some amount of energy - say, 100 IR photons - emitted upward from Earth. 16 of those photons went right on through; 84 of them were absorbed by a GHG, and their energy emitted again by the GHG. Half that energy heads upward again - toward space - and half heads down, back into the Earth. If you give me a dollar, Mr. Connolly, and I give you back 42 cents, how long would you like to play that game?

    Notice, this explanation preserves everyone's understanding of the "Greenhouse effect" - the Earth stays warmer than it would otherwise be, in the absense of any GHG, because it doesn't cool as quickly. Kind of like the insulation in the walls and roof of your house, or the blanket on your bed. But the insulation won't make the house warmer than the thermostat setting; it will just delay the furnace coming on again and save some fuel. The blanket won't make the temperature under the blanket warmer than 98.6 F. They're both passive processes; they don't add any energy to the system. They just redistribute the energy already in the system.

    At the risk of glazing your eyes, I'll mention that the GHG effect is logarithmic. That means there's a strong diminishing returns effect, like adding more insulation in the attic. Sure, the added insulation will save you a little more heating fuel. More GHG will cut that escaping radiation down, but every added GHG molecule has to compete for photons with the GHG (whether CO2 or H2O) that's already there. The efficiency of a GHG is additive, not multiplicative; if you double the GHG, you don't get 2X the absorption of IR energy. Instead, you get half as much. If you double again, now you get another 1/4. Double again gives you 1/8th. Add all the GHG you've got, and the capture of photons = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32.....= 2. I mention this because those who don't understand this assume - and sometimes explicitly claim - that the warming effect will continue to infinity. Wrong.

    You said "Even if climate change is a myth, the aforementioned questions still matter..." I agree; that's what matters. Of course, I just gave some more reasons to understand, as I do, that "climate change" IS a myth. BTW, we're talking - have been talking - about global warming and cooling, and AGW, which are measureable. I don't know what you mean by "climate change." Neither does Prof Roger Pielke Jr (whom I've previously quoted), who says:

    "To date no studies of economic losses associated with weather events have successfully identified a signal of human-caused climate change in loss data. This conclusion was underscored by the IPCC which surveyed the literature and concluded in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events that "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded."
    more at

    So far, I've largely agreed with you, and certainly what our obligation to the poor is; we disagree a bit on how to help them. Let's go on to the points where we disagree.

    I don't agree I've put words in your mouth, but I certainly have made assumptions about your position on several issues, based on what I know about you: you are a journalist, writing for a Catholic online magazine that is based in California. I assumed you wish to continue turning corn into ethanol. Don't you? You began your interview with Dr. Hendrickson by saying "Hello Mark, and thank you for taking the time to chat with a global warming believer." I conclude from that remark (your words) that you are a "global warming believer."

    You went on to say:"...shouldn't we avoid wanton CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution...?" This is page 1 in the global warming catechism. You apparently believe CO2 is a pollutant and that we should avoid CO2 emissions (your words). Now, correct me if I missed something, but THE ONLY REASON FOR TURNING AMERICAN CORN INTO ETHANOL IS TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS. Feel free to say explicitly that YOU DON'T APPROVE OF TURNING 40% OF THE AMERICAN CORN CROP INTO ETHANOL and I'll offer my apology for misunderstanding you.

    I also said "Connolly cannot or will not make the distinction between global warming (GW) and anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I didn't put those words into your mouth; they're MY words; I completely acknowledge them. But I pointed out, as others did, that Dr. Hendrickson was careful to distinguish between GW and AGW; you, on the other hand, ignored his distinction, titling the piece "Is global warming a hoax?" He didn't say GW was a hoax; he said GW (and cooling) was a fact, known from history; he said AGW was the hoax. I don't acknowledge your objection on this point; I didn't misrepresent your position. I just pointed out what you did.

    Since you are a journalist, I assume you are familiar with journalistic standards and have your own opinion of what the journalistic mainstream is regarding AGW. This comment is getting rather long, so I'll restrict myself to quotes from a mainstream journalist, Katrina vanden Heuvel, writing in the Washington Post, Jan 8, 2013, titled "Avoiding a climate-change apocalypse":

    "And extreme weather events — droughts, storms, heat waves — are increasing in number and intensity, disproportionately harming the world’s most vulnerable populations."

    "Fortunately, for now, life as we know it continues. And scary as all of this sounds, the real horror show, the true existential threat, is yet another crisis of our own making: the catastrophic effects of climate change."

    "Certainly, it will take much more research to understand whether there’s a direct link between Sandy and climate change. But we do know that storm’s impact was made worse by rising sea levels, increasing ocean temperatures and unusual weather patterns, all of which are definitively connected to climate change."

    Existential threat? Catastrophic effects? Definitively connected to climate change? (See Pielke Jr.) Well, vanden Heuvel is too mainstream - editor, publisher, and part-owner of The Nation, Princeton graduate Summa cum laude, to go overboard, so she referred her readers to Bill McKibben - journalist and activist, as vanden Heuvel calls him - for the really scary stuff. In case, you haven't heard of McKibben, Harvard grad and Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, he's the founder of, a grass-roots enterprise that demands returning CO2 in the atmosphere to a "safe level" of 350 parts per million, which it was in 1988. (There was no extreme weather before 1988?) This guy really thinks there's a will to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? or a technique to do so?
    "But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue."

    Any who care about Bill's "terrifying new math" can read it at the link above. I think it's nonsense, but McKibben has an idea - a campaign - to get the young and idealistic onboard:

    "But the link for college students is even more obvious in this case. If their college's endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won't have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree."

    Accordingly, McKibben and have begun a campaign among college students to get their colleges to divest themselves of fossil-fuel stock. So how does McKibben connect with Marshall Connolly and COL? Catholics have college students, many even in Catholic colleges and universities. You and I both receive the weekly email from the USCCB-supported Catholic Coalition on Climate Change. Here's a short segment from 04/03/2013, titled College Corner:

    "The Coalition is pleased to announce that the University of Portland (OR), a Catholic school in the tradition of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, has become a Catholic Climate Covenant Partner by institutionally endorsing the St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor."
    "Students and alumni at several Jesuit Universities have encouraged their institutions to divest their endowments from fossil fuel corporations in response to climate change and Catholic, Jesuit mission."

    "In an article titled Catholic Identity Requires BC's Divestment From Fossil Fuels in The Heights, students from BC Fossil Free write that Boston College President Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J. and the BC Board of Trustees have both the precedent and obligation to pursue total and expedient divestment of the University’s endowment from fossil fuel corporations in order to fully live the school’s Catholic, Jesuit mission.
    "Similarly, A Campus Call to Divest from Fossil Fuels from the Ignatian Solidarity Network reports about the divestment efforts happening at Georgetown University. Georgetown sophomore Sydney Browning is part of GU Fossil Free and says that Catholic, Jesuit schools have a special set of values that I admire and want to dedicate my life to, and I think that divestment adheres to those values. In order to adhere to these values, we should look at these companies that are violating human rights and the environment. As students we have a distinct responsibility to fight for divestment."

    I think there's a pretty clear ideological link between, the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change (which you've quoted in your column), and COL/Marshall Connolly. Have I "put words in your mouth"? No. Have I shined a light on the community you belong to - one which advocates shutting down fossil-fuel (not just coal-fueled) electricity generation plants and removing capital resources that would allow f-f companies to build new ones? You really don't understand what company you're keeping, Mr. Connolly? I said you and Prof Abraham forbid us to build coal-fired electricity generating plants in Africa and South America. The statement is too exclusive. If you subscribe to the CCCC (and USCCB) position, you would forbid us to build ANY fossil-fuel generating plant ANYWHERE in the world. Again, feel free - please - to say you would approve building fossil-fuel generating plants in Africa or South America - or even in North America. Such plants would increase CO2 emissions. My apology for misunderstanding you would follow.

    Let's get to our fundamental difference, which you identified well: "At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family."

    I agree it's about the one human family; why else would I continue this conversation? It's NOT about God's creation, if by that you mean climate change/AGW; not guilty on all counts. (Let me remind you: there's been no global warming for 15 years; no evidence for AGW has ever been demonstrated.) Yes, it IS about economic theory - making resources available to poor people to bring them up to modern living standards, instead of leaving them in conditions such as we had in this country 100 years ago - before the introduction of inexpensive electricity.

    I won't try to comment on Papal teaching; the Pontifical Academy of Science (PAS) got some advice on AGW from Ramanathan, Lonnie Thompson, and a third alarmist whose name I don't remember. Until they get some better, more critical advice, they'll continue to repeat the same line. But there were food riots in Argentina in 2008; I wonder whether turning corn into ethanol seemed like a good idea to Archbishop Bergoglio. We'll see. The previous Pontiffs were from Europe, the home of the AGW hypothesis and policy. Now, even Europe has given up on their Emissions Trading System (i.e., Cap and Trade). Perhaps the Vatican will reconsider its belief in the wisdom of CO2 reduction. I hope so.

    For myself, I agree with vanden Heuvel and McKIbben, though not in the way they expect. Solar activity is decreasing; the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is in its cool phase, and the Atlantic oscillation will soon follow; the earth is cooling, not warming. Cooling has led to catastrophe in the past, when population pressure was less. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll have natural experimental evidence in less than a decade.

  5. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    Ed, what do you think of this?

    William, if you interview Spencer, please be sure to include questions about what his critics say based on the professional literature, such as

  6. Ed Mejias
    1 year ago

    After reading the article and reviewing the data and video at the links, it is a very persuasive argument. But I have one last question? In my lifetime during the 70's in particular, I remember the big hoopla about Global Cooling and how in my lifetime, Florida would start to resemble the state of Maine climate wise. Instead of freezing, over the last decade or two I have been told that I will instead broil to death; yet, I haven't heard what became of the Global Freeze. Nor, just how the heck it turned from freezing to warming?
    In fact, a little informal research will also show that over the last 100 years or so there has been this swaying back and forth by scientists and other experts (motivated by what I don't claim to know) that the earth was freezing, then warming, then freezing, then warming, etc., etc. What is up with that? Are you going to tell me that it was the same motivating factors of today back in the late 1800's?
    Therefore, the only conclusion I draw is that this is either an elaborate plot stretching for decades (nearly a century), or (the conclusion I reached) that Scientists really don't know. That instead every few decades scientist find indicators that support one theory or the other and off they go with it, but in reality, the scope of it all is so immense and their understanding of it all so limited, that at best it is an educated guess based on the facts at hand at the moment. I am not going to deny that human beings have an impact; in fact I firmly believe all living creatures in this biosphere contribute. I just question how much, and how much is really out of our control. While we should always take measures to respect and properly husband the resources given to us by God, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot through a lack of judiciousness and common sense.

  7. Marsh Connolly
    1 year ago

    Mr. Savage if you could please refer me to the specific articles where I wrote:

    In order to stop this planet-destroying madness, Connolly and Abraham want us to continue to turn 40% of the US corn crop into ethanol – raising food and fuel prices in the process.


    Even more important, Connolly and Abraham – an engineer, yet – forbid us to build coal-fired electricity generating plants in Africa and South America.


    Connolly cannot or will not – the distinction between GW and AGW. AGW is a hoax…


    God help the poor! Idiots like Connolly and Abraham certainly won't.

    I have never advocated any of these positions or wrote the words you are putting in my mouth. I doubt you would appreciate me writing the specifics your position on the subject, wouldn't you?

    Each person on COL is entitled to their opinion. You may believe that GCW is a hoax, that it is made up by people with a sinister agenda. you may believe, and even say what an idiot you think I am.

    However, I will say that you are incorrect in your assumptions that I advocate oppressive change and that many individuals on here need to revisit the Church's current teaching on the subject. In fact, I do not believe I have ever made any specific advocacy.

    “At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family.”

    -U.S. Bishops

    and from our Holy Father,

    We can disagree all day, that's no big deal. However, would you agree with me that we should be responsible stewards of creation and manage the Earth's resources for the benefit of all, especially the poor, who suffer most from natural destruction? Can we not find a way to provide all the people of the world clean food, water, air, and electricity without polluting the planet on which we live?

    Are you willing to make do with a little less so your neighbor with none can have something?

    Even if climate change is a myth, the aforementioned questions still matter and must be answered by all.

    Thank you for your comments, I'll see if I can interview Dr. Spencer for us.

  8. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    It's informative and gratifying to read the focussed, intelligent comments of J.Bob, Conservative Ecologist, Jerry N, and others.

    Since today is Earth Day, may I suggest to the readers that they do something positive as a result of the two recent columns published here on "global warming"?

    I've commented before that current UN, European and US policies are intended to spare the poor (about 1.5 billion of them) from bad consequences of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I've also stated my opinion that turning food into ethanol and blocking the construction of electricity generation plants is the opposite of helping the poor. How much worse - how much poorer - would your life be without the easy, inexpensive access to electricity for refrigeration, heating, lighting, communication, and daily work?

    Unfortunately, our US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) supports the AGW fraud; the USCCB supports (financially) the Catholic Conference on Climate Change (CCCC). The CCCC has an active campaign to persuade Catholics to implement the usual shibboleths of Greendom - reduce your greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, any and all ways you can.

    If you understand the arguments we have presented here for skepticism about AGW, consider writing to your bishop expressing your doubt that reducing CO2 emissions really helps the poor.

    If you're still uncertain about the magnitude of AGW, ask yourself how much AGW - say, 1 degree F - justifies increased fuel and food costs for the poor? How much temperature increase justifies the annual deaths of 4 million children under age 5, in homes where Mother still cooks over an indoor fire of wood and dung?

    If the USCCB can spend $400K on the CCCC, perhaps they can afford an impartial look at the tradeoff between saving the Planet and saving some of its children?

    Where would they find such a person? I'd suggest Prof Roger Pielke Jr., of the University of Colorado-Boulder. Prof Pielke studies (and teaches) on policy direction in response to scientific and technological choices and opportunities. His most recent book on the subject is "The Climate Fix: What scientists and politicians won't tell you about global warming." Prof Pielke considers that humans ARE responsible for some amount of AGW; he's what we skeptics call a "lukewarmer."

    Nevertheless, he suggests we should not starve fellow humans or leave them in poverty in order to prevent that lukewarm AGW. You might like to read the book for yourself. I also recommend Roy Spencer's recent book, "Climate Confusion: How global warming hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians, and misguided policies that hurt the poor." Spencer, a good scientist, admits AGW might be real, but is skeptical about the motives of those who seek to convince us.

    It's been interesting participating by comment on these recent columns. In spite of my suspicion that Mr. Connolly has loaded the dice in favor of the AGW fraud, he has performed a useful service to Catholics and the Church in ventilating the subject, and I thank him for it. He's also been honest in printing, without censorship, the remarks of those who disagree with him (or what I perceive to be his viewpoint). Well done, Mr. Connolly.

    So what have you done for Earth Day lately?

    I don't think I have more to say on AGW, and I certainly won't spend more time asking Steve to face facts. But I will continue to read the column. I hope others will comment on their intentions in response to what has appeared here.

  9. Steve Elfelt
    1 year ago

    Richard, why do you shout about steady air temps at earth's surface but ignore the scientific literature showing that the deep ocean has been warming faster than before?

    Nearly all global warming goes into the ocean and it has accelerated these past 15 years. Do you not know the literature says this, or are you just ignoring it?

    Professional Papers

    Related press release - Rapid decline of coldest water on sea floor

    Lay person's Blogs about the papers
    - Global warming faster than ever, it's just heating the sea

    VIDEO - slowdown of thermohaline circulation and surface-deep mixing

    Meanwhile.... Richard you shout about a single way of looking at a single dimension of the system. Is that what the excellent scientists do? As the US National Academy of Science says, there are FIVE parts to the climate system. Your shouting about air temps at earth's surface - just one dimension of just one of the system's parts - is ironic since it is not even the most important part! The peer reviewed professional science literature (some links above) says 80-90% of the heating is stored in the sea.

    In addition, I realize you know Dr. Spencer on a first name basis, but do you really want to hang your hat on his claims? His opinions fly in the face of the world's national science academies, and he can't seem to get any traction in the professional literature. If Spencer can unilaterally turn global warming science on its head, he needs a Nobel prize. But he can't reliably get published.

    So readers have the question, hoax or serious problem with the overall, interacting system, the system of creation which allows us to grow food crops under "normal" weather patterns?

    Well, WWJD? Risk burning more fossil fuels, or look for other ways to meet human needs?

    Since 80-90% of the heating is stored in the sea global warming means "OCEAN warming" and OCEAN warming is faster than before. If you are willing to believe scienists and the peer reviewed science literature.

  10. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    Judging from the comments, it might be a good idea to have more items, on MAN MADE global warming.

    It allows many of the false assumptions of the Al Gore group to be shown in the light, & how weak their arguments are.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Hebrews 10:11-18
Every priest stands at his duties every day, offering over and ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 110:1, 2, 3, 4
[Of David Psalm] Yahweh declared to my Lord, 'Take your seat at ... Read More

Gospel, Mark 4:1-20
Again he began to teach them by the lakeside, but such a huge ... Read More

Saint of the Day

January 28 Saint of the Day

St. Thomas Aquinas
January 28: St. Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor of the Church, patron of ... Read More