Skip to main content

The four biggest mistakes we're making in the climate change debate Comments

Recently, Catholic Online published a story on the expansion of Arctic sea ice, suggesting the expansion of the ice represents a setback for the strident global-warming alarmist community. However, upon cool review of the evidence, the conclusion may be premature. Continue Reading

11 - 20 of 22 Comments

  1. James
    1 year ago

    "What is subject to debate are the causes of that warming, or specifically, to what degree are humans responsible for it."

    No, that isn't the question. Even assuming that human activity is responsible, which is in doubt, the question is which human activity is most responsible and how is that to be addressed? Is it burning of fossil fuel? Is it deforestation? Is it excessive pavement of otherwise verdant areas?

    Taxing Americans to death over CO2 emissions will not stop deforestation in the rest of the world. That is why I and others are terrified of the alarmists and their "solutions."

  2. ReduceGHGs
    1 year ago

    The FIRST mistake too many people make, including the writer of this article, is discuss the issue of Climate Change using terms that may imply that there is a CREDIBLE debate. There isn't. EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue concluded about the same; humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. So when discussing this core point, there should be not mention of a "debate" because there is no credible debate. The vested interests spread propaganda to get the public to think otherwise and delay pollution controls. It's expected but delays endanger our future generations. Contact your reps in Congress. Insist they work harder to reduce global emissions. If they drag their feet or deny there's a problem, confront them with the facts then help drag their feet out of office in the next election.

  3. Ta-152-H
    1 year ago

    Babu G.R Seriously I should pay attention to anybody that believes the Earth and Universe is at the most now 10.000 years old.The Creation Institute ,me thinks if I Google Image it ,it would come up as a trailer off a dirt road in Arizona as one such creation studies institute did I googled .Just google Google Satellite and take a look at man's impact on the Earth's surface it's hard to imagine man has not affected the atmosphere also .

  4. rafaelmarie
    1 year ago


    Look at the pictures of the ice caps.

  5. DSL350
    1 year ago

    Babu, Svensmark's work is interesting and useful (if inconclusive at this point). However, it cannot explain the trend of the last fifty years, simply because the trends in GCRs and clouds don't match the model. Indeed, there is evidence that tropical cloudiness may be subsiding (Fasullo & Trenberth 2013) as a result of warming.

    More importantly, Svensmark's work in no way explains away the theory of the greenhouse effect (GHE). In fact, to some degree it relies on the theory of the GHE. And, again, that's all that anthropogenic global warming is: the theory of the GHE plus the rather well-supported proposition that humans are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.

  6. Babu G. Ranganathan
    1 year ago


    Dr. Larry Vardiman (scientist and physicist) of the Institue for Creation Research says:

    "One possible scenario may be found in a recent series of articles by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Marsh, cosmic ray specialists from Denmark, who have shown an indirect connection between galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity and global temperature.7,8,9 They are studying the influence of the Sun on the flow of GCR to Earth. The Sun's changing sunspot activity influences the magnetosphere surrounding the Earth permitting more GCR to strike the Earth during high periods of activity.

    When the Sun is active, the intensity of GCR striking the Earth is increased, causing more ionization in the atmosphere, creating more carbon-14, and possibly creating more cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This increase in CCN, in turn, appears to create more low-level clouds which cool the Earth. When the Sun is quiet the GCR intensity striking the Earth is reduced, allowing the Earth to warm. Svensmark and Marsh have shown a striking statistical correlation between sunspot activity and global cooling and warming over the past 1000 years.

    The recent rise in global temperature may partially be due to current low solar activity supplemented by a recent increase in carbon dioxide concentration measured at Mauna Loa. The connection which still needs further study is the production of CCN and clouds by GCR."

    There is a good deal of science showing that global warming is not mad made. Yes, we still should have pollution controls, as we already do, but not to the extreme because it will unnecessarily hurt business.

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan
    B.A. Bible/Biology


  7. hugh
    1 year ago

    God will never allow man to perish from the earth. We'll still be here when the end times arrive. Jesus taught that.

  8. DSL350
    1 year ago

    Commenter "mememine" is a guy named Paul Merrifield. He copy/pastes the same message across the internet. He does not respond to criticism.

    Rafaelmarie, I welcome the evidence upon which you base your position.

    Jerry N,

    1. Understand that the surface/troposphere is all of 4-5% of the thermal capacity of the climate system. The oceans are 90%+. Global ice mass loss takes up about 2-3% of the accumulating energy. If you want to know what global warming is doing, look at ocean heat content:

    The oceans have been warming steadily as projected. Global ice mass loss has actually accelerated over the last decade. See the most comprehensive study ever performed on ice sheet loss, Shepherd et al. 2012. Also see the World Glacier Monitoring Service.

    As far as surface temp and modeling goes, the expected trend persisted until 2008. Since then, temp has wandered south of the ensemble model mean. That doesn't mean much, since the ensemble model mean is just the average of all model runs. None of the models resulted in the model mean. Surface temp is still within the 95% confidence range of the full run of models.

    Arctic sea ice has been severely underestimated by models. The current (2013) state of the Arctic was supposed to happen 50-60 years from now.

    2. No. Models aren't built for the short-term. Too much noise in the short-term. Confidence in the long-term trend is delivered by basic physics. The 150-year old theory of the greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in lab, from satellite, and via direct surface measurement. That's all global warming is: the greenhouse theory plus the proposition that humans are responsible for the massive spike in atmospheric CO2. Physics says that if we increase atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, the climate system stores more energy (or, if you prefer, becomes less efficient at cooling itself).

    3. Not much I can do with someone who gets to determine, with no attempt at justification, what counts as legitimate evidence.

    4. At what point do you believe? Even historical accounts are mitigated by human error and bias. Your own memory is quite capable of being inaccurate. Science doesn't "prove" anything. That's not how it works. It gathers all the evidence and finds the theory that best fits the evidence. Note that no alternative theory that accounts for existing physics and observations has ever been offered anywhere--not in publication and not even where one would suspect it, on the "fake skeptic" blogs like WUWT and Climate Audit. Nowhere.

    5. What counts as actual science, Jerry? I'm going to guess your answer. Let's see if I'm right.

  9. Simon
    1 year ago

    Thanks for this article. It is very well written and accurate.The analogy of the ice cream was wonderful. When you look at the reality - warming rising oceans, shrinking ice, average temps going up, it's hard to deny the reality... in fact you would have to be a denier to do it.

    Sadly people like Jerry are too gripped by their political doctrine to see the wood for the trees.

    Congratulations again. Probably the best and fairest article I have read on the subject for some time.

  10. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Time to douse Marshall's green trash fire with a bucket of common sense again:

    1. Marshall: "At the present time, climate change appears to be spurred by global warming.... That this is happening is beyond question."

    It is definitely not "beyond question", and all the recent data collected in the last decade, including record Artic ice growth this past year, indicates that if there ever was a miniscule late 20th century warming trend, it has completely stopped. Please note the full range of the temperature scale on Marshall's fanciful alarmist graph is a whopping 1 deg C. The air temperature often changes more than that in less than five minutes where I live.

    2. Marshall: "...climatologists can't accurately predict what will happen from one year to the next....However, we do know the warming is coming and it's coming fast."

    So, according to Marshall, no one can predict what will happen in the short term, all the alarmists' long-term predictions have been dead wrong, but yet we know exactly what will happen in the very long term with absolute certainty. This logic is based on an obscure branch of extrapolation mathematics called "incomprehensibus".

    3. Marshall: "It's still getting warmer, year over year on average, and we need to explain it and do something about it."

    No, it's not getting warmer year over year on average. The only explanation needed is that people like Marshall continue to spout bald-faced lies, based on mostly bogus scientific "evidence", and the only thing that needs to be done about it is to expose the liars who are preaching this false "green religion". Even if there were a minor warming trend, there is absolutely nothing human activity can do to either cause it or mitigate it.

    4. Marshall: "Not even in prehistoric times have we witnessed such a rapid change in climate for either warmer or colder. "

    A complete and total crock of baloney. No one knows with any certainty how fast the earth's climate changed in the prehistoric past, and some scientists firmly believe it changed drastically enough within a few decades to kill off all species of dinosaurs. "Prehistoric" means "before recorded history" which by definition implies that no records, much less accurate scientific data, exist about those times. In the absence of records or data, the best science can do is reach speculative conclusions, based on sparse "leftovers" from those times, that can probably never be proven with much certainty.

    5. Marshall: "I don't know what we need to do to avert or mitigate a future crisis..."

    That Marshall knows not what to do should surprise nobody. What people like Marshall Connolly need to do is to stop publishing gibberish such as this piece of fabricated nonsense, and start studying some actual science. Maybe then he would know what can and is being done, by people who actually do study and understand science, to protect our environment without destroying economic growth and prosperity. .

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

Saint of the Day

March 2 Saint of the Day

Bl. Charles the Good
March 2: In 1086, St. Canute, King of Denmark and father of Blessed ... Read More