Skip to main content

Scientists: global climate change really is all your fault Comments

A prominent body of scientists have placed the blame for global climate change squarely at the feet of humanity. The American Geophysical Union, a body of more than 62,000 scientists, made the announcement on Monday. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 17 Comments

  1. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    @jan ... It is clear there is no problem of 'global (anthropogenic) climate change'. Note "SHOCK NEWS! Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013" (http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/shock-news-arctic-summers-ice-free-by-2013/) for the 'scare' has now gone on for ~35 years. There are no 'current' or then even potential 'future' impacts of (it is presumed) anthropogenic warming|climate change, there is none to observe. The future then of that scare is now, do note this please jan.

    @Lis ... There is no Science expressed in the article, the 'scientists' by voting are not producing Science Lis. There is no problem of 'climate' to observe, do note "Sea Level Rise Surprise" (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/sea_level_rise_surprise.html). What is 'it' then that you fear? For the sake of the poor we need to begin rapid take-up of GAS so to make cheaper Electricity whilst undoing the nonsense 'carbon' schemes which only make more expensive those practically functional generation processes.
    I am unaware of God instructing his children to be ignorant for to be stewards an appreciation of what is and its properties is crucial! How can you claims 'stewardship' is your purpose whilst pretending CO2 is carbon? Note that those persons interviewed in the video attached to this article complain of what is infact particulate pollution, Carbon is a particulate solid. CO2 is not. Coal can be used indirectly by extracting gas which minimizes the impact on the environment. Gas IS 'green' and produces effectively electricity.
    What facts do you otherwise have Lis? Sea level rises still naturally, Temperature is observed to be independent of CO2 (which is not carbon), warmer is now regarded as being 'wetter' so more CO2 (already greening the planet) will aid to increase plant growth. Polar bears perhaps? Perhaps (http://polarbearscience.com/2013/08/07/ian-stirlings-latest-howler-the-polar-bear-who-died-of-climate-change/) not. Time now (after ~35 years) for the 'climate' politicknic's facts to be on the table firmly, not alluding to "dissent" as being "funded by politically and business motivated groups". There is no 'problem'.

  2. Lis
    1 year ago

    How can you have a whole article about scientific consensus, then give voice to uncited "dissent" - most of which is funded by politically and business motivated groups like ALEC and ExxonMobil - as a false show of journalistic balance? And then on what grounds do you follow that up with adaptation as the best solution - adaptation is a band-aid. It's important, but it's not the whole solution. We need to stop digging ourselves in a deeper ditch, for the sake of the poor and future generations who will suffer for our inaction. God called us to be stewards of His creation, not willing plunderers who ignore the facts!

  3. jan
    1 year ago

    It is clear from these comments why humanity has waited so long to do something in the face of current and future impacts. It seems more than a bit arrogant for your everyday layman to play scientist. When their loved ones are seriously ill, I suppose they will play doctor too.

  4. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    Well the claims of these 'scientists' fall flat from the outset with the mention: "... "Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last 50 years," the declaration reads. According to the body of 62,000 scientists, humans are responsible for the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming humans have observed over the past 140 years. ..."
    ...for the pre-existing trend from ~1800 to ~2000 did add approx 0.5C+0.7C=1.2C.

    "The AGU is clear. Humans are responsible, and this appears to be the consensus view of the vast majority of their 62,000 members. The statement reinforces, "Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." Interestingly, the statement concludes with a call for more research, "Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change."

    The AGU is however without any actual Science to support the claims it makes (still), the 'consensus' view is thus supported how? A vote by 'scientists'? What negative outcomes then? There isn't shown any anthropogenic effect to counter! Without observable effect there cannot be validly presumed some anthropogenic process, there's not a 'thing' to be fought.

    "... The degree of blame that humans face is also subject to debate. There is little question that humans are polluting the planet and one has only to look at air quality in China to see the harms of untrammeled emissions. ..."
    However CO2 is not pollution nor is CO2 the problem in China. The problems in China are based on particulate pollution (Carbon), hence the wearing of paper filter masks.

    "... "Human activities are changing Earth's climate," the statement declares. It continues, "extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming." The statement explains that warmer air and sea temperatures as well as melting glaciers and sea-level rise were evidence of the change...."

    The observable facts aren't on the side of these 'scientists', the observations they'd mention would be again of the computer model. There's no unnatural variations in sea level rise, there is no unusual change is Ocean temperature or the of Air temperature either (with no significant warming for ~15 years). Some examples... "Current Sea Ice extent" (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php). "UAH July global temperature, significantly down" (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/uah-july-global-temperature-significantly-down/#more-91018) or then "Panic! Seas are rising 6cms a century!" (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/panic_seas_are_rising_6cms_a_century/).

    These 'scientists' seek shelter behind the phrase 'global warming' (that natural pre-existing trend) whilst making allusions towards a supposed anthropogenic effect. So what is the real issue these 'scientists' are aroused by? Well that is also become obvious: "Interestingly, the statement concludes with a call for more research, "Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change." ...for it is funding of their positions that is the real concern.

    "... "The degree of blame that humans face is also subject to debate. There is little question that humans are polluting the planet and one has only to look at air quality in China to see the harms of untrammeled emissions. ..."

    There is pollution made, the issue of 'warmism' however attempts to bundle CO2 into such a category whilst simultaneously relabeling CO2 as 'carbon'. What should be done? About what exactly? Many nations have set emissions goals for themselves announcing plans to reduce 'carbon' emissions and greenhouse gasses but none are effective seeming a 'window dressing' accompanied by efforts to juggle numbers. Other nations probably won't 'follow'.
    Economic growth is required whilst concern for 'global climate change' is only an attention to politicknic's slogans and demands inconsistent with fact. To get all nations and people of the world to agree and work against anthropogenic climate change would require such to be utterly observable, to whatever degree it is actually happening. This is as without such obvious effect there can be no actual 'goal post' set to begin with.
    There couldn't be made notable achievements to repairing 'a problem' without such being first observed! There's no major 'climate) problem to observe so despite the certainty expressed by the AGU it has not presented a reality of 'the problem' but only more supposition within a ~35 year long presentation of 'scientists opinion'. So significant and powerful portions of society remains unconvinced of supposed anthropogenic effects and still see 'significant change with substantial sacrifice' as unviable if not untenable.
    The AGU then is acting still in an 'alarmist' manner but attempts to tone down the call 'to panic' with the addition of a 'but remain calm'! Scientists would be attempting instead to demonstrate the observation of this supposed anthropogenic process in the real world instead of protesting that 'it' exists and demanding 'it' requires real world activity to (somehow) counter! Counter what? What is 'wrong' with what is actually observable? Nothing seems to be the greater consensus view...

  5. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    And how many of these 62,000 scientists actually believe the proclamation?

    Kind of kin to the 97% "cherry picked climate" scientists that put out the same line.

    Seems some of these "scientists" are beginning to feel the trough of $ grants running out.

    Again, who is selecting these questionable articles, for this site?

  6. BeHumble
    1 year ago

    What? The FIRST sentence: "Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last 50 years,"

    THEN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

    According to the body of 62,000 scientists, humans are responsible for the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming humans have observed over the past 140 years.

    What is it? the last 50 years , or the last 140 years?

    For me, after reading the first paragraph, the article lost all credibility.

    The problem with the whole Climate Change issue is that it is based on predictions.

  7. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    Well the claims of these 'scientists' fall flat from the outset with the mention: "... "Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last 50 years," the declaration reads. According to the body of 62,000 scientists, humans are responsible for the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming humans have observed over the past 140 years. ..."
    ...for the pre-existing trend from ~1800 to ~2000 did add approx 0.5C+0.7C=1.2C.

    "The AGU is clear. Humans are responsible, and this appears to be the consensus view of the vast majority of their 62,000 members. The statement reinforces, "Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." Interestingly, the statement concludes with a call for more research, "Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change."

    The AGU is however without any actual Science to support the claims it makes (still), the 'consensus' view is thus supported how? There are not shown negative outcomes, there is not shown any anthropogenic effect! Without observable effect there cannot be validly presumed some anthropogenic process to counter, there is not a 'thing' to be fought.

    "... The degree of blame that humans face is also subject to debate. There is little question that humans are polluting the planet and one has only to look at air quality in China to see the harms of untrammeled emissions. ..."
    However CO2 is not pollution nor is CO2 the problem in China... the problems in China are based on particulate pollution, hence the wearing of paper filter masks.

    "... "Human activities are changing Earth's climate," the statement declares. It continues, "extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming." The statement explains that warmer air and sea temperatures as well as melting glaciers and sea-level rise were evidence of the change...."

    The observable facts are not on the side of these 'scientists' whilst the observations they mention would again be of their computer model. There is no unnatural variations in sea level rise, this is the observable fact. There is no unusual change is Ocean temperature or the of Air temperature. Again these 'scientists' seek shelter behind 'global warming' (that natural pre-existing trend) whilst making allusions towards a supposed anthropogenic effect.
    For example... "Current Sea Ice extent" (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php). "UAH July global temperature, significantly down" (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/uah-july-global-temperature-significantly-down/#more-91018) or then "Panic! Seas are rising 6cms a century!" (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/panic_seas_are_rising_6cms_a_century/).

    So what is the real issue these 'scientists' are aroused by? Well that is also become obvious:
    "Interestingly, the statement concludes with a call for more research, "Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change."
    ...for it is funding of their positions that is the real concern.

    "... "The degree of blame that humans face is also subject to debate. There is little question that humans are polluting the planet and one has only to look at air quality in China to see the harms of untrammeled emissions. ..."

    There is pollution made, the issue of 'warmism' however attempts to bundle CO2 into such a category whilst simultaneously relabeling CO2 as 'carbon'. What should be done? About what exactly? Many nations have set emissions goals for themselves and other plans (and outright schemes) to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses, none are effective and seem only 'window dressing' accompanied by efforts to juggle numbers.
    Other nations probably won't 'follow' as economic growth is required whilst concern for 'global climate change' is only an attention to an apparently corrupt politicknic's slogan, corrupt as its demands are inconsistent with fact. To get all nations and people of the world to agree and work against anthropogenic climate change would require such to be utterly observable, to whatever degree it is actually happening.
    This is as without such obvious effect there can be no actual 'goal post' set to begin with, there then could not be made notable achievements to repairing a problem. There is thus no major problem, and despite the certainty expressed by the AGU it has not presented a reality of 'the problem' but still more supposition in a ~35 year long presentation of 'scientists opinion'. Hence significant and powerful portion of the world remains unconvinced of supposed anthropogenic effects and see 'significant change with substantial sacrifice' as unviable if not untenable.
    The AGU then is acting still in an 'alarmist' manner but attempting to tone down the call 'to panic' with the addition of a 'but remain calm'. Scientists would be attempting instead to demonstrate the observation of this supposed anthropogenic process in the real world instead of protesting that 'it' exists and demanding 'it' requires real world activity to (somehow) counter! Counter what? What then is 'wrong' with what is actually observable? 'Nothing' seems to be the greater consensus view...

  8. John
    1 year ago

    Sweet merciful joe! Another pro human induced climate change story!? Really? What is with Catholic online's constant peddling of this garbage? This site just ran a story about a day ago spewing deceptive climate change tripe with the title 'scientists say warming will bring more murder, rape, unrest'. But they interestingly waited until the very last sentence to mention 'climate change is not the only cause for this unrest and may not even be the main cause'. What the H was the point of that article? To scare people into believing that they will be murdered and/or raped because of climate change. Oh, and make so cash while they're at it.
    And that brings us to this article...'scientists say climate change is all our fault'. BUT, about 2/3 into the article it admits 'the climate is very complex and is not well understood'. So, you are 100% certain humans are causing this and we need 'rapid societal responses to lessen negative outcomes' (meaning, slow/limit economic growth and development), yet the climate isn't really that well understood? I remember how the 'experts' told us with 100% certainty after Hurricane Katrina that human induced climate change would bring more intense and frequent hurricanes and tornadoes. Well, we haven't actually had a hurricane make landfall in the us since Obama was elected, outside of last year, tornadoes have been trending down and for 2013 are looking like they will be the lowest in recorded history for the US, wildfires and droughts are near record lows as well. Oh yeah, global warming was supposed to be on a steady rise year after year BUT, temperatures have failed to rise for over a decade. Wait...scientists were 100% sure of their statements based on their fool proof data- how could they be wrong?
    1) the 'scientists' are allowed to say whatever they want and are never held accountable for their blatant errors/lies. 2) the media, including this site, are purposefully deceiving the general public about this issue and peddling fear in exchange for $$$. Pathetic.
    As for you, catholic online, you are total hypocrites. If you are going to run these stories, at least provide a more balanced approach.

  9. Louis Barta
    1 year ago

    Global warming is not being caused by humans. It is being caused by a sun being agitated by cosmic rays and a strong magnetic field located just outside our solar system. These "green" UN propaganda pieces, preaching a false gospel of junk science that most researchers repudiate, are not being well-received by Catholic Online readers, yet CO relentlessly keeps airing them.

  10. DavidNutzuki
    1 year ago

    ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
    He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures
    He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters
    He selleth my soul for CO2
    He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason
    I will fear no logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me
    Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me
    Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence
    Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my fear runneth over
    Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life
    And I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever.


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, Ephesians 4:7-16
On each one of us God's favour has been bestowed in whatever ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 122:1-2, 3-4, 4-5
[Song of Ascents Of David] I rejoiced that they said to me, ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 13:1-9
It was just about this time that some people arrived and told ... Read More

Saint of the Day

October 25 Saint of the Day

St. Daria
October 25: There is very little known about them. Chrysanthus was an ... Read More