|
|
Post by fretslider on May 18, 2017 13:49:55 GMT -5
The Pope is allegedly god's representative on Earth. You'd think one religion would be enough, but no.Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has claimed in an interview that Pope Francis will “convince” President Trump to take action climate change during their scheduled meeting on May 24th. Pope to convince Trump on climate change, Sorondo tells ANSA
‘Oil companies rallied against pope’s encyclical’
(ANSA) – Vatican City, May 15 – Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez told ANSA in an interview that he believes the Pope will convince US President Donald Trump to change his mind on climate change. Pope Francis dedicated his ‘Laudato Si’ encyclical to climate change and will be meeting with Donald Trump on May 24, who has signed an executive order dismantling Obama-era environmental legislation.
In the eyes of Sanchez Sorondo, the choices adopted on climate by Trump “are against science, even before being against what the Pope says. In the election campaign he even said it was a Chinese invention to criticize America. But this president has already changed about several things, so perhaps on this as well”.
He added that “today the Chinese are actually very collaborative as concerns the commitments they took on climate with the Paris Climate Conference (the Conference of the Parties, or COP2)”.
The Argentinian bishop, who spoke last week at the University of the Holy Cross at an event marking the two-year anniversary of the Pope’s encyclical, said that “when he was preparing the ‘Laudato Si’, oil lobbies did everything in their power to prevent the Pope from saying what he did, meaning that climate change is caused by human activity that employ fossil fuels.
Perhaps the oil companies wanted a ‘light’ encyclical’ – a romantic one on nature that wouldn’t say anything at all.
Instead, the Pope followed what the scientific community says.
If the president does not follow science, then that is the president’s problem.” On his opinion that the Pope will manage to “convince” Donald Trump, Sorondo said that “they will come to an agreement, since the president claims to be a Christian, and so he will listen to him.”www.ansa.it/english/news/2017/05/15/pope-to-convince-trump-on-climate-change-sorondo-tells-ansa_f3ee22ae-7b9d-4158-a922-d1710faf9b92.htmlAs we all know there is science and there is faith... I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe—and, more importantly, act. First, we do not like to be told that we need to change, particularly for something as broad as climate change. We don’t even like to exercise when we are told we should. Second, the changes are hard to detect, though that is getting easier. Third, there are those who believe, sometimes for religious or other social reasons, that humans can not possibly change the earth. A scientist explains the very real struggle of talking to climate-change deniers, qz.com/911262/a-scientist-explains-the-very-real-struggle-of-talking-to-climate-change-deniers/No reference to any hard evidence of anything. I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe - straight out of the high priest's mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 18, 2017 15:50:22 GMT -5
The Pope is allegedly god's representative on Earth. You'd think one religion would be enough, but no.Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has claimed in an interview that Pope Francis will “convince” President Trump to take action climate change during their scheduled meeting on May 24th. Pope to convince Trump on climate change, Sorondo tells ANSA
‘Oil companies rallied against pope’s encyclical’
(ANSA) – Vatican City, May 15 – Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez told ANSA in an interview that he believes the Pope will convince US President Donald Trump to change his mind on climate change. Pope Francis dedicated his ‘Laudato Si’ encyclical to climate change and will be meeting with Donald Trump on May 24, who has signed an executive order dismantling Obama-era environmental legislation.
In the eyes of Sanchez Sorondo, the choices adopted on climate by Trump “are against science, even before being against what the Pope says. In the election campaign he even said it was a Chinese invention to criticize America. But this president has already changed about several things, so perhaps on this as well”.
He added that “today the Chinese are actually very collaborative as concerns the commitments they took on climate with the Paris Climate Conference (the Conference of the Parties, or COP2)”.
The Argentinian bishop, who spoke last week at the University of the Holy Cross at an event marking the two-year anniversary of the Pope’s encyclical, said that “when he was preparing the ‘Laudato Si’, oil lobbies did everything in their power to prevent the Pope from saying what he did, meaning that climate change is caused by human activity that employ fossil fuels.
Perhaps the oil companies wanted a ‘light’ encyclical’ – a romantic one on nature that wouldn’t say anything at all.
Instead, the Pope followed what the scientific community says.
If the president does not follow science, then that is the president’s problem.” On his opinion that the Pope will manage to “convince” Donald Trump, Sorondo said that “they will come to an agreement, since the president claims to be a Christian, and so he will listen to him.”www.ansa.it/english/news/2017/05/15/pope-to-convince-trump-on-climate-change-sorondo-tells-ansa_f3ee22ae-7b9d-4158-a922-d1710faf9b92.htmlAs we all know there is science and there is faith... I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe—and, more importantly, act. First, we do not like to be told that we need to change, particularly for something as broad as climate change. We don’t even like to exercise when we are told we should. Second, the changes are hard to detect, though that is getting easier. Third, there are those who believe, sometimes for religious or other social reasons, that humans can not possibly change the earth. A scientist explains the very real struggle of talking to climate-change deniers, qz.com/911262/a-scientist-explains-the-very-real-struggle-of-talking-to-climate-change-deniers/No reference to any hard evidence of anything. I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe - straight out of the high priest's mouth. If this happen-eds then science and then science dies a little more and the world takes another step down the road of "going through the looking-glass." |
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 18, 2017 16:04:37 GMT -5
The Pope is allegedly god's representative on Earth. You'd think one religion would be enough, but no.Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has claimed in an interview that Pope Francis will “convince” President Trump to take action climate change during their scheduled meeting on May 24th. Pope to convince Trump on climate change, Sorondo tells ANSA
‘Oil companies rallied against pope’s encyclical’
(ANSA) – Vatican City, May 15 – Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez told ANSA in an interview that he believes the Pope will convince US President Donald Trump to change his mind on climate change. Pope Francis dedicated his ‘Laudato Si’ encyclical to climate change and will be meeting with Donald Trump on May 24, who has signed an executive order dismantling Obama-era environmental legislation.
In the eyes of Sanchez Sorondo, the choices adopted on climate by Trump “are against science, even before being against what the Pope says. In the election campaign he even said it was a Chinese invention to criticize America. But this president has already changed about several things, so perhaps on this as well”.
He added that “today the Chinese are actually very collaborative as concerns the commitments they took on climate with the Paris Climate Conference (the Conference of the Parties, or COP2)”.
The Argentinian bishop, who spoke last week at the University of the Holy Cross at an event marking the two-year anniversary of the Pope’s encyclical, said that “when he was preparing the ‘Laudato Si’, oil lobbies did everything in their power to prevent the Pope from saying what he did, meaning that climate change is caused by human activity that employ fossil fuels.
Perhaps the oil companies wanted a ‘light’ encyclical’ – a romantic one on nature that wouldn’t say anything at all.
Instead, the Pope followed what the scientific community says.
If the president does not follow science, then that is the president’s problem.” On his opinion that the Pope will manage to “convince” Donald Trump, Sorondo said that “they will come to an agreement, since the president claims to be a Christian, and so he will listen to him.”www.ansa.it/english/news/2017/05/15/pope-to-convince-trump-on-climate-change-sorondo-tells-ansa_f3ee22ae-7b9d-4158-a922-d1710faf9b92.htmlAs we all know there is science and there is faith... I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe—and, more importantly, act. First, we do not like to be told that we need to change, particularly for something as broad as climate change. We don’t even like to exercise when we are told we should. Second, the changes are hard to detect, though that is getting easier. Third, there are those who believe, sometimes for religious or other social reasons, that humans can not possibly change the earth. A scientist explains the very real struggle of talking to climate-change deniers, qz.com/911262/a-scientist-explains-the-very-real-struggle-of-talking-to-climate-change-deniers/No reference to any hard evidence of anything. I believe there are several reasons why we don’t want to believe - straight out of the high priest's mouth. If this happens then science dies a little more and the world takes another step down the road of "going through the looking-glass." |
|
|
|
Post by kronks on May 18, 2017 23:20:31 GMT -5
Science had yet to provide any convincing evidence that climate change is harmful, the clearest evidence we have of clime change is a massive greening of the earth, hardly the Apocalypse.
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 19, 2017 6:11:11 GMT -5
Science had yet to provide any convincing evidence that climate change is harmful, the clearest evidence we have of clime change is a massive greening of the earth, hardly the Apocalypse. did you manage to underh stand the French in the first post kronks ...or perhaps it wasn't French |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 19, 2017 6:23:44 GMT -5
Science had yet to provide any convincing evidence that climate change is harmful, the clearest evidence we have of clime change is a massive greening of the earth, hardly the Apocalypse. actually climate change could be very harmful.. much depends on the speed of change and where that change occurs however climate change is a perfectly natural thing and has been happening for ever what is happening though is a political social agenda has taken climatic change and tried to make it in their own image.. first they screamed it"" was man made climate change""" then it was global warming then global cooling and now its just a stick to beat the west with for political reasons and an absolute denial and refusal to be honest .. and truth has long since gone out of the window I think we are all aware that climates alter ... and we also have some good documentation going back over a thousand years here in England other countries to can provide credible evidence ...that climates change |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 19, 2017 6:59:47 GMT -5
Science had yet to provide any convincing evidence that climate change is harmful, the clearest evidence we have of clime change is a massive greening of the earth, hardly the Apocalypse. actually climate change could be very harmful.. much depends on the speed of change and where that change occurs however climate change is a perfectly natural thing and has been happening for ever what is happening though is a political social agenda has taken climatic change and tried to make it in their own image.. first they screamed it"" was man made climate change""" then it was global warming then global cooling and now its just a stick to beat the west with for political reasons and an absolute denial and refusal to be honest .. and truth has long since gone out of the window I think we are all aware that climates alter ... and we also have some good documentation going back over a thousand years here in England other countries to can provide credible evidence ...that climates change The climate has always been in a state of change. It always will be. There is no evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm and there is no evidence that CO2 is responsible. The trick - and we've seen plenty of evidence for it - is to adapt. Humans can survive an ice age with no modern technology. I just wonder if we can cope with the extra harvests that are being grown. They must be dangerous, somehow. You might like this. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem thinks coercing women to have children they don’t want is the fundamental cause of climate change. People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?
“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”www.refinery29.com/2017/05/153643/gloria-steinem-exclusive-interview-create-cultivate-conferenceGloria might like to tackle the Islamic patriarchy and its exceedingly high birth rates, but I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by kronks on May 20, 2017 0:11:47 GMT -5
Science had yet to provide any convincing evidence that climate change is harmful, the clearest evidence we have of clime change is a massive greening of the earth, hardly the Apocalypse. did you manage to underh stand the French in the first post kronks ...or perhaps it wasn't French Well I most of it seems to English to me, but it didn't make a great deal of sense, as is often the case for Frets posts. Maybe English is not his first language? I am not too sure what his point was if indeed he had one. Oh maybe I get it, he seems to be saying "climate science" is like a religion or something like that? The problem with that is whilst there is evidence for God there is no evidence for climate change, at least not climate change of a harmful nature. So his reasoning seems a bit mangled there, again not too unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 20, 2017 7:53:27 GMT -5
theres oodles of evidence of past climate change big and small...where would you like to start?
one factor often over looked is the effect of volcanos... which can and has changed climates for years two i can think of qu ...plenty of evidence of that and plenty of documentation of climate changes which have happened in England.from real winters to mini ice ages to hot and sunny summers where grapes and apricots and other warm climate fruits were quite easily grown or look at the sahara once a fertile growing area with an abundance of animals
to state there is no evidence for climate change is laughable.. when the documentation is available
two noteable volcanos which caused climate changes were Krakatoa and before that Thera/Santorini which caused widespread devastation
of course volcanos are not responsible for all climate changes.. there are a whole host of other reasons for changes
""Maybe English is not his first language?""says one whose inability to understand the meanings of words is very apparent
why do you constanly jump in kronks and say this or that didnt happen.. before you have any proof of what ever your saying
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 20, 2017 8:40:55 GMT -5
theres oodles of evidence of past climate change big and small...where would you like to start? one factor often over looked is the effect of volcanos... which can and has changed climates for years two i can think of qu ...plenty of evidence of that and plenty of documentation of climate changes which have happened in England.from real winters to mini ice ages to hot and sunny summers where grapes and apricots and other warm climate fruits were quite easily grown or look at the sahara once a fertile growing area with an abundance of animals to state there is no evidence for climate change is laughable.. when the documentation is available two noteable volcanos which caused climate changes were Krakatoa and before that Thera/Santorini which caused widespread devastation of course volcanos are not responsible for all climate changes.. there are a whole host of other reasons for changes ""Maybe English is not his first language?""says one whose inability to understand the meanings of words is very apparent why do you constanly jump in kronks and say this or that didnt happen.. before you have any proof of what ever your saying How about as far back as we can go. Note the lack of relationship between evil CO 2 and temperature  |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 20, 2017 18:10:12 GMT -5
theres oodles of evidence of past climate change big and small...where would you like to start? one factor often over looked is the effect of volcanos... which can and has changed climates for years two i can think of qu ...plenty of evidence of that and plenty of documentation of climate changes which have happened in England.from real winters to mini ice ages to hot and sunny summers where grapes and apricots and other warm climate fruits were quite easily grown or look at the sahara once a fertile growing area with an abundance of animals to state there is no evidence for climate change is laughable.. when the documentation is available two noteable volcanos which caused climate changes were Krakatoa and before that Thera/Santorini which caused widespread devastation of course volcanos are not responsible for all climate changes.. there are a whole host of other reasons for changes ""Maybe English is not his first language?""says one whose inability to understand the meanings of words is very apparent why do you constanly jump in kronks and say this or that didnt happen.. before you have any proof of what ever your saying Krakiatoa erupted in 1883 and definitely altered the climate here is a brief account taken from Wiki Global climate In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[11] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[11] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the “water year” from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[12] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[13] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[14] but many scientists doubt that there is a causal relationship.[15] The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[16] Global optical effects The 1883 Krakatoa eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards, and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets halfway around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[17] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight. In 2004, an astronomer proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[18] Weather watchers of the time tracked and mapped the effects on the sky. They labeled the phenomenon the "equatorial smoke stream".[19] This was the first identification of what is known today as the jet stream.[20] For several years following the eruption, it was reported that the moon appeared to be blue and sometimes green. This was because some of the ash clouds were filled with particles about 1 µm wide—the right size to strongly scatter red light, while allowing other colors to pass. White moonbeams shining through the clouds emerged blue, and sometimes green. People also saw lavender suns and, for the first time, recorded noctilucent clouds.[17] |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 20, 2017 18:19:18 GMT -5
the Thera/Santorini eruption had an even greater impact on climate Thera/Santoriniand even wiping out a civilisation.. I think the era was around 1600sBC
it impact was Global.. China.. Europe..Amrica and of course the much nearer areas of the med and north Africa and none of the impacts were good.. it wipped out the Minoan civilisation of Crete ...
there is a great deal of information about this on the web and its all fascinating stuff..
if any one is interested just type ..... ............Thera/Santorini
|
|
Alpha 
