∗Global Warming is Real
Scientists who argue for global warming being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
• Argument 1 – Rise in Sea Level – Sea level is rising in many areas of the world. This is partially attributed to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, but more to the changes in the gases contained within the sea. In the past decade, the global mean sea levels have doubled compared to the 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. The global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century.
• Argument 2 – Rise in Earth’s Average Temperature – Global temperature rise during past century and half continues. Tracking global atmospheric temperatures since the 1800s, scientists point to a steady rise with a stronger period in the 70s, lull in the 90s and a return to the rising pattern in the 2000s.
• Argument 3 – Rise in Ocean Temperature – The rise in the number of vehicles and industries has resulted in greenhouse gases getting trapped in the atmosphere. The increased heat in the atmosphere have been absorbed by the oceans. There is over 50 years of documented temperature records for the oceans that have recorded a steady rise in its temperature since 1969.
• Argument 4 – Shrinking Glaciers – The glaciers on several mountain ranges, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica, are decreasing in size due to reduction in gases that help to maintain temperatures, and changes in the regions climate. Studies conducted by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice every year between 2000 and 2006.
• Argument 5 – Ocean Acidification – Acid level in ocean is increasing which is making the oceans of the world more acidic. This is due to emission of more harmful gases in the atmosphere by humans which is getting absorbed by the oceans. This is resulting in an increase of algae blooms and mass fish deaths, as well as a change to the chemical composition of the water.
Global Warming isn’t Real
Many scientists make a strong case against global warming being real. They often look towards the same evidence as those in favor of proving its existence, but draw different conclusions. They also look at some evidence not considered in other arguments. These scientists hold to a strict definition of global warming as being defined as a rise in atmospheric temperature, they do not consider the atmospheric precursors as valid evidence.
• Argument 1 – No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 – Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn’t real because since the 90s there hasn’t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature has been flat since then which clearly states that there isn’t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years.
• Argument 2 – Not Enough Historical Data Available – There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn’t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don’t have long term historical climate data or the data they have isn’t clear.
• Argument 3 – Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 – Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version.
• Argument 4 – Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable – The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift.
• Argument 5 – Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong – Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example:- Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012.
Which Argument to Believe?
The main part of the problem lies in the two groups using different definitions of how global warming appears in the climate. This is one of the reasons that those advocating that global warming is real now use the term “climate change,” since it is more reflective of the real issue. The other problem lies in proof, and in studies that try to prove whether or not global warming is real. Contrary to public belief, the results of all scientific studies aren’t conclusive.
To be considered proof of a hypothesis, the studies have to be able to be replicated by others and produce the same results. With the global warming studies, analysis of decades of weather data is often used. The first problem is that weather data from 100 years ago wasn’t kept to modern standards of evidence. The second problem is that analysis is interpretation; you can really put any spin on it. This is why some of the arguments for and against whether global warming is real can use the same data and come to different conclusions.
Note: Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a *“Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
*Lawless “Billionaire Club” Behind Green Scam, Senate Study Finds Written by Alex Newman
Source: New American Wednesday, 06 August 2014
A shadowy network identified as the “Billionaires Club” is showering funds on the environmentalist so-called “green movement.” In addition, this network may be violating federal laws in its controversial efforts to elect its operatives, seize control of the federal regulatory regime, and push its radical agenda on America, according to a new report by Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Now that the Billionaires Club has purchased so much power, it is using its agents in the bureaucracy to further fleece taxpayers to advance its own goals by granting its front groups even more money, the Senate investigators found. Top insiders such as David Rockefeller and Bill Gates are deeply involved.
Operating under the bogus guise of “philanthropy” with little scrutiny from the IRS, the network also goes to great lengths to conceal its activities and insulate itself from the damage it is doing
Pray to God that we will find the truth.
Whether you Like it or not. (Editor’s comment)
Canon Law Made Easy
COMMENTARY: by FATHER DWIGHT LONGENECKER 10/30/2013
One of the reasons we celebrate ‘All Saints Day’ and ‘All Souls Day’ one day after the other is a reminder that all souls are called to be saints.
In ministering as a Catholic priest, I sometimes get the impression that Catholics are more interested in the minimum than the maximum.
What I mean is that too many Catholics seem to have heard that what is required to be a good Catholic is to go to Mass once a week and confession once a year. That’s it.
Therefore, they do their duty. They check the boxes. They complete the test. They reckon they’ve done just enough to stay out of hell, that God will forgive them the rest, and they’ll coast into heaven having done what’s required.
They seem, to me, like the high-school kid who was told by his teacher that his term paper needed to be five pages long with footnotes, so he turns in a mediocre effort that is five pages of mush with a few footnotes.
This isn’t what a term paper is for. The term paper is a set part of the coursework so the student will not just learn how to write a five-page paper, but also learn something in the process. The term paper was a means to an end. It was not an end in itself.
So it is with the practice of the Catholic faith. The rules and regulations of the Catholic faith — going to Mass each Sunday and confession once a year, the precepts of the Church and the Ten Commandments — these strictures and structures are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
They are the rules for the game of sainthood. They are the map for the journey.
The game and the journey are far greater. The destination of the journey and the goal of the game is sanctity. To put it plainly: All of us are supposed to become saints.
Our hearts should burn with the words of St. Thérèse of Lisieux: “You must be a whole saint or no saint at all!”
Once we have entered into the body of Christ through baptism, our destiny is total sanctity. In the Eastern Church, they call this theosis. It means becoming transformed into the full image of Christ.
In St. Paul’s words to the Ephesians, it means “growing up into the full humanity of Jesus.” A saint is not simply a person who is more pious than anyone else. A saint is a person who has become more himself than anyone else.
A saint is an ordinary person who has been made complete and whole and has become the fully alive person God created him to be.
I get the feeling, however, that most Catholics find such an idea to be excessive or extreme. It is as if they are saying to God, “You know, I’m not such a great person. I’m not ambitious. I know you are preparing all those mansions in heaven. Well, I’ll be content with a little shed down in the lower gardens. That’s all right for me. Just as long as I squeeze through the pearly gates, I’ll be fine.”
God has much greater things prepared for us than we can ever dare to hope or imagine. He wants nothing less than our total transformation. He created us to be shining stars in the heavens — brilliant examples of his complete, creative love. He wants us to enjoy the fullness of life in Christ, and many seem content with just getting by.
One of the reasons we celebrate All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day one day after the other is a reminder that all souls are called to be saints. We pray for the repose of the souls of our loved ones on All Souls’ Day, but why do we do this?
Saying that we pray “for their repose” makes it sounds passive. Are we simply praying that they will rest in peace? There is more to it than that. We are also praying that God will continue his work of grace in their lives and bring them to the full state of holiness and sanctity for which they were created.
Purgatory is not simply a place of rest. When we die, if we are not in mortal sin, we do not simply go to a retirement home in the sky. Purgatory is not a place of hammocks on the beach, where we can finally put up our feet and have a well-deserved rest.
Purgatory is the place where we finish the work we have left undone on this earth. In purgatory, our remaining weakness, cowardice, lust, greed and selfishness are burned away. Purgatory is a place of progress, not simply a place of peace.
When we pray for our loved ones on All Souls’ Day and throughout the month of November, we should be praying in an active way, not only that they will find peace, but that they will grow up into the full stature of Christ Jesus and rapidly rid themselves of every weight that holds them back — so they might become the radiant images of Christ they were created to be.
As for ourselves, there is a beautiful prayer in the funeral service: “That God might help us to use aright the time that is left to us here on earth.”
The work of becoming a saint is easier here than it is in purgatory. All of us still have plenty of work to do as we cooperate with God’s grace in the great adventure of sanctity. This work requires a courageous and joyful spirit. It requires discipline and the spirit of the warrior.
Again, we hear the call of little St. Thérèse, who said to her novices, “Sanctity: It must be won at the point of a sword!”
Father Dwight Longenecker’s latest book, The Romance of Religion, will be published in February 2014 by Thomas Nelson. Visit his blog, browse his books and be in touch at DwightLongenecker.com.
Is Climate Change a man-made phenomenon
The Words of St. Francis: I ask you with whatever reverence I can that you do not let the cares and worries of this world cause you to forget God and turn from the path of his commandments.
9 Things You Need To Know that Climate Change is a Hoax, The “Daily Wire”
Oct 7, 2016
With Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc, the Left is predictably seizing the storm as a means of promoting their radical global warming agenda. Climate change has not been a major theme this election cycle, but Hillary Clinton is now trying to turn it into one, with the help of global warming guru Al Gore. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, despite all the celebrity endorsements and high-minded rhetoric, the facts keep getting in the way. Here are nine things you need to know about the climate change hoax.
1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.
One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the “father” or “grandfather” of the climate change myth, as it was his “Model Zero” that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying “to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming,” according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the “background data on which their findings and temperature records were based,” even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear “any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.”
2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via Forbes:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
An email written by Mann showed that he tried to get “an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” a climate skeptic scientist named Steven McIntyre.
3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”
Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.
A 2015 Washington Times editorial also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books:
Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.
4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that “2014 was the warmest year on record” and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it’s clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.
5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the “the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific” that “occur on average every two to seven years,” according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It’s likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.
7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the “average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade,” according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.
8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry. National Review reports:
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.
9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano points out at Climate Depot, “The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S.”
“That’s right, no major hurricanes have made landfall for over a decade,” Morano continued. “This is the longest such drought on record.”
Here are seven more things you need to know about global warming.
Sep 14, 2016
1. A few decades ago the media and many in the scientific community were in hysterics over global cooling. Newsbusters has a roundup of the various news outlets that promoted the global cooling hysterics from 1970:
“Scientists See Ice Age in the Future,” Washington Post, January 11
“Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself?”, Los Angeles Times, January 15
“Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports,” St. Petersburg Times, March 4
“Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century,” Boston Globe, April 16
“Pollution called Ice Age Threat,” St. Petersburg Times, June 26
“U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic,” New York Times, July 18
“Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age,” Sydney Morning Herald, October 19
An article from Newsweek in 1975 cited the “almost unanimous” consensus among meteorologists that global cooling “will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” The article even cites a report from the National Academy of Sciences at the time warning: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.”
2. There is no consensus that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that requires “urgent” action. One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists is that 97 percent of scientists agree that it’s man-made and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue. This is patently false, as Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer explain in The Wall Street Journal, this number comes from three sources and they’re all riddled with errors
• In 2009, a University of Illinois student conducted a two-question survey for her master’s thesis that asked respondents if “global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.” Skeptics and proponents typically answer yes to both questions, so unsurprisingly 97 percent said yes. Additionally, only 79 scientists responded to the survey.
• A student at Stanford found in 2010 that 97 percent or 98 percent of “the most prolific climate change writers” believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” No mention on how serious the problem was, and he only found the views of 200 researchers when the number of climate change researchers are in the “thousands.”
• La Jolla, Calif.determined in 2013 that 97 percent of “abstracts of peer-reviewed papers” believed that “human activity is responsible for some warming,” but a more exhaustive study of Cook’s work determined that only 0.3 percent of the 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook concluded that “human activity is causing most of the current warming.”
There are also plenty of scientists, meteorologists and researchers who don’t think human activity will result in overheating the planet:
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
There is no “consensus” that there’s man-made global warming that will cause an ensuing catastrophe.
3. Some global warming alarmist scientists weren’t able to get the results they wanted, so they tampered with the data. For instance, there was the infamous scandal known as “Climate-Gate” where leaked emails showed that a cabal of world-renowned scientists discussed hiding the lack of warming because it wasn’t the outcome they wanted, as documented here and here. Additionally, NASA appeared to have cooked the books as well; in 2007 they found that 1934 was the hottest year in its record instead of 1998, so they recalculated the data to make it seem like 1998 was actually the hottest year on record.
4. There has simply not been a lot of global warming in recent years. As The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro has written:
For example, The Economist reported in 2014, “Between 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s.” That forced the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to come up with a whole new way of evaluating its data to fight those results. It also forced global warming advocates to claim that the oceans somehow ate up all of the excess heat in the air. All of that led President Obama to claim to the world in Paris that 14 of the past 15 years have been the hottest on record. But when scientists said that 2014 was the hottest year on record, they admitted they were only 38% sure that was the case.
This trend continued in 2015, which was nowhere near the hottest year recorded by satellite, meaning that there has been an 18-year pause in global warming. Additionally, there has been a “trend since 1900 [that] is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century,” which is statistically insignificant, according to Christopher Monckton.
5. The sea levels are not rising by record levels, and there has not been an increase in extreme weather events. Here are the relevant facts for each, as previously reported by The Daily Wire:
• For the past 50 years, the sea levels have gone up by a little more than one millimeter a year, which is normal. There is no evidence that they’re going to rise by faster levels in the future.
• There has been a net increase in ice growth in Antarctica.
• Data from NOAA shows that there has been a decrease of tornadoes, falling hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and bitter winters. There is also evidence that is no link between global warming and wildfires and extreme rainfall.
6. There is evidence to suggest that it is actually higher temperatures that result in higher levels of CO2. The videos below provide the evidence and explain why this occurs:
Note: See, Thomas Sowell’s book, Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?
In fact, there is a graph in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that shows exactly this, but it’s only shown for a short amount of time in the movie so the viewer doesn’t see the correlation.
7. Not only will the left’s “solutions” to global warming do little to actually stop warming, they would cause massive harm to the economy. As radio host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin has written in his book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, Dr. Niv Shariv at Hebrew University concluded: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50 percent increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have all called for an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Shapiro explains just how devastating this would be:
In California, the average resident is responsible for 9.42 tons of carbon emissions each year. By 2050, that would have to drop to 1.88 tons. That’s about what the current residents of North Korea emit, according to Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute. Per capita GDP in that country is currently $1,800 per year. If we extend that model out to the entire United States, every resident would have to drop to below-Mexican standards of carbon usage, and likely to Mexico-standards of GDP (try $10,400 per year). It would apparently cost us $5 trillion by 2050 just to subsidize businesses to create more energy efficient solutions. And that doesn’t mean that the solutions are better than what we currently have.
The president has made these following statements.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump appeared to do an about-face on the issue of climate change, urging Americans to move away from fossil fuels and signaling that there may be some truth to global warming theories.
The Washington Examiner reported that he said that “there is still much that needs to be investigated” about climate change, calling for Americans to transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. In the past, he has called climate change a “hoax” created by the Chinese, but he also has said he supports local bans on fracking.
“Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels,”
He said, more pressing environmental needs must be addressed including cleaning up water, and reducing disease.