tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post8222691766201757360..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: SAY IT AIN'T TRUE! FATHER Z ENCOURAGES CAFETERIA CATHOLICSM! IF A CATHOLIC CAN BE A CAFETERIA CATHOLIC, THEN A MAN CAN BE A WOMEN AND A WHITE WOMEN CAN BE A BLACK PERSON, THE EARTH IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBAG OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!IT ALL FITS TOGETHER NOW! WOW!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2381085641854929782015-06-23T02:35:10.173-04:002015-06-23T02:35:10.173-04:00Anon 2 - there have been plenty of news outlets re...Anon 2 - there have been plenty of news outlets reporting what Schellnhuber was reported by the New York Times to have said. In a recent interview he is now calling all the journalists liars. But as Breitbart reports:<br /><br />"Instead of suggesting that he was misquoted or that his critics misunderstood what he said at Copenhagen, Schellnhuber called reporters liars: "[It's] a complete lie. You can go back to the original lecture. I gave it in Copenhagen. I know there are some vicious people who try to discredit you. I have never spoken in favor of population control measures. What I said in Copenhagen in 2009 was about the carrying capacity of the earth. There have been estimates since the 1700s on how many people in the earth can you carry, so to speak. This number goes up and down, and some say 10 billion, others 100 billion, some just 100 million."<br />But, at the Copenhagen speech, as reported in the New York Times, Schellnhuber did not elaborate so extravagantly as he did with Pentin. He did not say estimates of Earth's carrying capacity could be 10 billion or 100 billion. He said the carrying capacity of Earth is estimated "at less than 1 billion," which is what Breitbart News and other outlets reported. It should be noted that radical environmentalists have long proposed what Schellnhuber proposed at Copenhagen, that the carrying capacity of the Earth is 1 billion or less, leaving open the question of what to do with the dangerous excess of six billion."<br /><br />http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/20/vaticans-newest-global-warming-extremist-calls-critics-vicious-liars/<br /><br />Of course he also did a backtrack on the Himalayan melt when it was reported how ridiculous it was and it was based on incorrect Himalayan measurement.<br /><br />Breibart reports that even in his latest interview he refers to "'population problem,' which is a phrase population control advocates tend to use" and "An interview with Schellnhuber (in German on YouTube) has come to light in which he doubles down on his belief in overpopulation. In the interview he posits that when the Earth reaches nine billion people, which is projected to be very soon, “The Earth will explode” due to resource depletion, which is similar to the now debunked argument first advanced by Paul Erlich in the 1960s that got the modern population control movement humming in the first place."<br /><br />So Catholics have a right to be concerned about this Godless man and to wonder why Pope Francis chose him as an advisor.<br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-5400463651031702092015-06-23T02:28:00.536-04:002015-06-23T02:28:00.536-04:00Anon 2, here is the original quote again:
" ...Anon 2, here is the original quote again:<br /><br />" Hans Joachim Schellnhuber<br />In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.<br /><br />What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.<br /><br />Already with the current world population of 6.6 billion people, an overuse of resources is taking place. In the year 2050, 9.4 billion people will be living on the planet.<br /><br />The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode."<br /><br />Now evidently he is denying that quote - seems typical of him doesn't. Always reneging on what he has said when he is found to be in error or queried about what the planet should do with the excess 6 billion people. He got the Himalayan melt abysmally wrong - which you tried to interpret as a mere typo!<br /><br />If you wish to read how he denies what he said and calls the journalists liars read here:<br /><br />http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/20/vaticans-newest-global-warming-extremist-calls-critics-vicious-liars/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74005309699226219882015-06-21T15:16:50.360-04:002015-06-21T15:16:50.360-04:00Anon. Jan:
Yes, I did notice you were repeating t...Anon. Jan:<br /><br />Yes, I did notice you were repeating the falsehood propagated by a Pro-Life website (you quoted much more than those two lines by the way). Please explain how repeating someone else’s falsehood with approval lets you off the hook when you know it is a falsehood?<br /><br />As you refuse to acknowledge that it is a falsehood but continue to double down on it, and on the assumption that you know what you are doing, I have to assume further that everything you write on the subject of climate change is ideologically driven and untrustworthy and that your tactic is simply to malign those who argue that climate change is real and that human beings are the primary cause. Therefore, contrary to my usual practice of reading everything and then attempting to evaluate it, I am sorry but I will not read the rest of what you wrote. It is now irretrievably tainted by your evident bias and the likelihood that it comes from the same sorts of junk websites whose untruths and distortions you have already foisted upon readers here.<br /> <br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-31358134808448059512015-06-21T10:27:38.323-04:002015-06-21T10:27:38.323-04:00Part 2
To reduce carbon emissions, the German go...Part 2<br /><br /><br />To reduce carbon emissions, the German government has invested heavily in wind and solar power. But these methods have proved to be unreliable and unsustainable without government subsidy, tearing at the German economy.<br /><br />Recommendations in the WBGU “Master Plan” include a “future council” made up of a few, non-elected men who would have the power to veto democratic decisions it deemed unacceptable. But a backlash against this kind of threat to democracy is brewing in Germany.<br /><br />The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the German equivalent of the Washington Post, has been highly critical of Schellnhuber, and writes that one of the fundamental aims of the WBGU was changing Germany’s constitutional law: climate protection was to become an official state priority. The WBGU even called it a test for democracy, claiming that if society failed to act, it would tell us that democracy was no longer capable of functioning in the face of crisis. The FAZ disagrees, saying that the WBGU “failed to trick their way past democracy.”<br /><br />Pope Francis, it seems, has been badly misinformed and led astray by advisors such as Schellnhuber. However, contrary to what global warming extremists suggest, the science of climate change is not decided."<br /><br />http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/06/17/unholy-alliance-who-advising-pope-francis-global-w <br /><br />Jan<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-60959020557864990512015-06-21T10:26:40.592-04:002015-06-21T10:26:40.592-04:00Anonymous 2, if you had read the article carefully...Anonymous 2, if you had read the article carefully you would see that I was reporting a pro-life publication saying: <br /><br /> "He’s on record as suggesting the earth has a carrying capacity of under 1 billion people. What he proposes to do with the other six billion is anyone’s guess."<br /><br />Here is some more interesting background to Schellnhuber:<br /><br />"Enter Schellnhuber, a German scientist who came up with the 2 degrees Centigrade temperature limit and is known for his radical ideas on climate change. That is, we must limit any increase in global warming to 2 degrees or humanity faces unavoidable catastrophe. In 2009, for example, he claimed famously that the “carrying capacity” of the Earth is less then one billion people. It will be interesting to see if he still holds these views in the near future, and if so, what advice he will offer on how to adjust that number, given that the world’s population currently stands at 7.2 billion.<br /><br />Schellnhuber, is director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute, which has been crafting data, indicating alarming climate change like the 2 degree trigger, to frighten German politicians into adopting radical climate policies. His predictions are based on yet to be validated, computer-generated models, predicting doomsday scenarios. In reality, satellite data confirms there has been no notable warming for the past 18 years. Sea ice is on the rise. Crop production is increasing. Hurricane numbers are down. Sea level rise has declined for the past decade – all of the catastrophes Schellnhuber predicted – are not happening.<br /><br />Perhaps that is why Schellnhuber revised his 2011 statement that the emissions curve needs to peak no later than 2020 in order to meet the 2 degree target. Now he says: at latest by 2030. Funny how climate change alarmists will keep adjusting their predictions instead of evaluating new data. That’s an example of why some call climate change “a moral crusade in search of a scientific theory.”<br /><br />Schellnhuber is also the director of the WBGU, the German Advisory council on Global Change. The council is made up of nine scientists. Their primary task is to advise policymakers in Germany and worldwide on how we should deal with climate change.<br /><br />Their 446-page “Master Plan” for “The Great Transformation of Global Society,” was designed to fast-track Germany, and the world, into “sustainability” and an almost carbon-free society by 2050. Their draconian recommendations have caused the price of electricity to rise so substantially, Germans have taken to calling their electric bill their “second rent.” <br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-14872232276721410572015-06-20T21:58:00.370-04:002015-06-20T21:58:00.370-04:00Anon. Jan:
I realize that this post is probably f...Anon. Jan:<br /><br />I realize that this post is probably futile but I have only just noticed that in your post at 8:00 p.m. on June 18 you repeat the assertion that Schellnhuber advocated reduction of the Earth’s population to 1 billion. You cite someone called Westen who cites to the 2009 New York Times article reporting on one of Schellnhuber’s speeches. Now, I have already debunked this claim in two earlier posts (5:18 p.m. and 10:17 p.m. on June 17) and linked you to the actual New York Times article: Here it is again:<br /><br />http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/?_r=2<br /><br />I explained that the context seems to suggest that Schellnhuber was warning what would happen if measures to control carbon emissions were not controlled. In other words it was a doomsday prediction not a policy suggestion. You replied by quoting more of the speech, suggesting the NYT had only reported on part of it (9:42 a.m. on June 18). I responded by suggesting that you failed to put the extended quote in the context of the doomsday prediction and asked you to link us to the full text of Schellnhuber’s speech, which I assumed you had access to, so we could all see for ourselves the FULL text of what he said (5:23 p.m. on June 18) but you never did. Instead you cited Westen and pro-lifers who either cannot or will not read things in their proper context and their attacks on Sachs and Schellnhuber (8:00 p.m. on June 18). (I am not addressing Sachs here.)<br /><br />Why do you insist on repeating this apparently false claim that Schellnhuber advocated reducing Earth’s population to 1 billion? As I said before, people who do this sort of thing lose all credibility. It is important for us to try to respect the facts. This should not be a game of scoring debating points. As Catholics we should be dedicated to pursuit of the truth however inconvenient it might be not just in repeating a worn narrative. And please send us the link to the full text of Schellnhuber’s speech if you have it (which I am now beginning to doubt). Thanks<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32214153025043355202015-06-20T16:03:56.423-04:002015-06-20T16:03:56.423-04:00Anon. Jan and George:
Here is the problem. You ca...Anon. Jan and George:<br /><br />Here is the problem. You can cite your skeptical study and I can cite a study rebutting it (for example, I recall an earlier exchange about the climate skeptic Richard Muller who subsequently recanted his skepticism and also about the tree line). We could go round and round all day like this and still get nowhere because (at least speaking for myself) we are not scientists. Now, I do not draw from this fact the “political” inference, apparently much beloved by so-called conservative politicians over here, that I should therefore reject the consensus of 97% of climate change scientists. Instead if anything I would draw the opposite inference while still remaining cautious and wanting to hold scientists on either side of the debate to account for their claims.<br /><br />Ss I said in our earlier exchange George:<br /><br />The point is that we should be guided by the very best science possible and (this is very important) that we should try to minimize the effect of bias (especially ideological bias) in undertaking scientific investigation and reporting the results (and notice I said “minimize” because the complete elimination of bias in scientific inquiry is probably impossible). This approach will yield the most reliable “facts.” But what if the “facts” are still controverted? Well, isn’t it then a question of weighing all the available evidence relevant to both cause and effect to determine the probabilities in accordance with some standard of proof (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. as the lawyers would say), coupled with allocation of the burden of proof? And shouldn’t both the standard and burden of proof be determined by the consequences of one side or the other being wrong and thus the kind and level of risk involved?<br /><br />Do you agree? If so, it means that we should rigorously apply the scientific method to get the best data we can. It also means looking at all the data together and not cherry picking those items that favor one side or the other. In addition it means that we should be very careful when “evaluating” data. This is especially true for non-scientists. <br /><br />What is not reasonable, surely, is for the debate to be driven by the ideologies of environmental yea-sayers (and their often quasi-religious zeal) and of environmental naysayers (with their heads in the sand and their eyes on the bottom line). The stakes are too high for such immature nonsense. So, after the typical statement “Well, I’m not a scientist” by “conservative” politicians there should be a humble silence, combined with a desire for scientific accountability – and the same for the other side.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-48028787626946964992015-06-20T01:36:44.169-04:002015-06-20T01:36:44.169-04:00Thanks for that info, George. It is that sort of ...Thanks for that info, George. It is that sort of information that is making some scientists more than a little sceptical. The deliberate changing of data around the world, in particular, should be enough to alert people who have a mind of their own to at least take a look at what is being said on climate change. There are a lot of people profiting financially from the spectre of global warming. Referring to the reversing of a cooling trend figures in South America it is further reported: <br /><br />"But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.<br /><br />An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.<br /><br />Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).<br /><br />By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).<br /><br />One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.<br /><br />In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world." <br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html<br /> <br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3802901886406179062015-06-19T19:15:51.954-04:002015-06-19T19:15:51.954-04:00Ecological tree line history and palaeoclimate – r...Ecological tree line history and palaeoclimate – review of megafossil<br />evidence from the Swedish Scandes<br />Kullman, Leif Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.<br />2013 (English)In: Boreas, ISSN 0300-9483, E-ISSN 1502-3885, Vol. 42, no 3, 555-567<br /><br />A Summary:<br /><br />Birch and Pine trees in the Swedish Scandes first appeared on early deglaciated nunataks during the Late glacial. Their tree lines peaked at almost 600m higher than present-day elevations. This implies (adjusted for land uplift) that early Holocene summer temperatures may have been 2.3 degrees C above ABOVE modern ones. Tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4800 years Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.<br /><br />In commenting further on the findings, Kullman says that "the emergence during the past two millennia of at least two short-term tree line and thermal excursions to higher than present levels (i.e. early 21st century) indicates that the current performance of the ecological and climatic systems is well within the envelope of the natural variability of the late Holocene period."<br /><br />Thus, on the basis of real-world data (properly analyzed), Kullman's analysis of tree-line data, along with the results of the many other studies he cites, jointly provide yet another strong amalgamation of evidence that supports the view that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Earth's current level of warmth.<br /><br />A link to the full research paper (it is in Adobe format):<br /><br /><br><a href="http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BOREAS-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">Climate Change in the Swedish Scandes</a><br /><br />The Pope and his advisers could well be right about the climate change and global warming. It is too early, and there exists enough counter evidence, to call those who deny it as being wrong. That being said, there are good things in the Encyclical.<br /><br />Given the teachings of the Church such major issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, artificial contraception, euthanasia and the male only priesthood, versus where the increasingly secular humanist world is headed on these, there seems to be a day of reckoning coming( barring Divine intervention of some sort). Perhaps what the Holy Father is doing by delving into one of the secular's big domains, will have the effect of delaying that which seems increasingly likely- a coming persecution from the unbelievers- a little longer.<br /><br />Ar any rate, we should pray for the Holy Father. <br />Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58414090494282349662015-06-19T17:44:19.829-04:002015-06-19T17:44:19.829-04:00Yes, thanks Anon. Jan, I read all that. I also tho...Yes, thanks Anon. Jan, I read all that. I also thought I distinctly heard mention of the year 2350 instead of the year 2035. So, is anyone denying that the Himalayan glacier will melt by 2350 with the effects claimed, whatever the actual size in square mile may be?<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9380021148719526362015-06-19T13:46:29.214-04:002015-06-19T13:46:29.214-04:00Glacier melt…don't they serve that at Baskin R...Glacier melt…don't they serve that at Baskin RobbinsAngry Augustinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558209425377293588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-43982129985163753042015-06-19T07:26:58.768-04:002015-06-19T07:26:58.768-04:00I provided the link but for some reason it wasn&#...I provided the link but for some reason it wasn't posted but if you Google :Hans Schellnhuber, atheist", you will come up with numerous news reports including from the New York Times. I have Googled but cannot find any disclaimer from Hans Schellnhuber saying he is not an atheist as reported by all the main media.<br /><br />part 2 of my previous post showing the blunders of Hans Schellnhuber:<br /><br />At the 4.47 mark Ottmar Edenhofer, deputy director of the PIK, forgets about what his boss had said was “very easy to calculate“, and shifts the blame for the Himalayan blunder on the IPCC overall peer-review process:<br />This is in now way excusable, and naturally we have to make sure that we make the peer-review of the text much more efficient.”<br /><br />A remarkable piece of advice when one considers that Edenhofer’s boss, Schellnhuber, had claimed earlier that the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 was “certainty”.<br />At the 5:40 mark, BR television on 3 June 2012 asks how the gross Himalaya error found its way into the IPCC report. The answer is delivered by Professor Hans von Storch at the 6:05 mark:<br /><br />I think one of the reasons why it was there is because of they worked sloppily. Perhaps it had something to do with, so to say, the desire for the right result.”<br /><br />Yet, no journalists ever bothered to follow up and ask Schellnhuber why he had peddled such an absurd prognosis back in 2009. In an interview with Spiegel on October 6, 2010, Schellnhuber acts like he had never made the ridiculous Himalayan 2035 melting prediction. In the Spiegel interview (7:10 mark) he is quoted (highlighted in yellow):<br /><br />There were just a few bad mistakes, but they were very troublesome. The IPCC is in the public spotlight and there is so much at play and errors of this magnitude mustn’t happen. The IPCC has to do its homework in order to overcome the current credibility crisis.”<br /><br />Clearly Schellnhuber wants us to believe that he had never peddled the “easy to calculate” 2035 Himalayan ice melt scenario. Journalist Karsten Schwanke, who had done the interview with Schellnhuber on ZDF television back in 2009, wrote in an e-mail on February 1, 2010 (see 8:00 min mark):<br /><br />It is of course huge crap that such errors go through the entire IPCC. I thought they all worked to check everything a thousand times. Personally I was always skeptical about this melt warning. Ice at 7000 or 8000 meters elevation, why would it melt? It’s way too cold. At most it could sublimate if it stopped snowing. But the India monsoons bring new snow every summer. I just don’t understand it.”<br /><br />In summary what turned out to be one of climate science’s most embarrassing blunders, was also one Schellnhuber’s most “certain” and “very easy to calculate” scenarios.<br />Finally at the 8:40 mark of the video, Schellnhuber is taped in an interview saying:<br /><br />I believe that there has never been a socially relevant area examined by science that has been more meticulously checked for errors than climate science.”<br /><br />I don’t see how any expert could have been more misleading."<br /> <br />- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/08/new-film-shows-hans-schellnhuber-claiming-himalayan-2035-glacier-melt-was-very-easy-to-calculate/#sthash.h1CjXbY0.E8IgLIwH.dpuf<br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38427067935165562712015-06-19T07:23:30.359-04:002015-06-19T07:23:30.359-04:00Anonymous 2 it was more than a typo it was because...Anonymous 2 it was more than a typo it was because "the Himalayan glacier area given in the IPCC report was completely false. It is only 33,000 square kilometers and not a grotesque 500,000.” <br /><br />"The creator of the above video, Rainer Hoffmann, had spent three months researching past statements made by Schellnhuber. The result is a 10-part series called: The 10 Inconvenient Truths of Climate Pope Hans Schellnhuber. It exposes a number of troubling, contradictory statements made by the Potsdam Institute director over the past years.<br /><br />According to the klimamanifest site, the above video was inspired by comments Schellnhuber had made on German public television on May 27, 2013, where he once again warned of a planet warming by 4°C by the end of the century.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Part I: Schellnhuber claimed the Himalayas melt of 2035 was “very easy to calculate”<br />At the 0:50 mark Schellnhuber is shown in an exclusive interview on ZDF German public television on October 30, 2009, explaining the risks of the globe’s “third ice cap“: the Tibetan Plateau, whose summertime melt water feeds a number major Asian rivers that help support 2.5 billion people in the region. Schellnhuber at the 2:06 mark:<br />If now, and one can calculate this very easily, in the next 30, 40 years, with 2°C of warming this will with certainty happen, um, when these large glaciers disappear for the most part, these rivers will dry up in the summertime. And in winter, this is the other side of the story, the precipitation will fall as rain in the valley; that means the floods will be far more dramatic, no?”<br /><br />Clearly we see that in 2009, two years after the 4AR had been issued in 2007, Schellnhuber was preaching the Himalayan 2035 glacier meltdown, even claiming he could “calculate the melt very easily” and that major rivers like the Yangtze, Ganges, Mekong´, etc. would dry up. But just over 2 months later, the media found out that what had been “very easy to calculate” was a huge whopping error. The above video shows two clips: one on 19 January 2010 and one on 11 February 2010 that say the 2035 Himalayan ice melt was a huge blunder. Moreover, the 3SAT report at the 4:20 mark of the above video points out yet another whopping error made by the 2007 IPCC report:<br /><br />It should have been clear to experts that the scenario was pure nonsense, and not because so much ice in this region could ever melt in just 25 years, but also because the Himalayan glacier area given in the IPCC report was completely false. It is only 33,000 square kilometers and not a grotesque 500,000.”<br /><br />Suddenly 93% of “the Earth’s the third pole” disappears.<br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27347075230150765512015-06-19T06:17:15.879-04:002015-06-19T06:17:15.879-04:00Anon. Jan:
Yes, it seems the IPCC Fourth Assessme...Anon. Jan:<br /><br />Yes, it seems the IPCC Fourth Assessment report contains a mistake. My German is a bit rusty but if I understand correctly from the video in the linked article the mistake was in claiming the Himalaya ice cap would disappear by 2035 instead of by 2350. That sounds like some kind of typo to me. Have I understood correctly? The claim came from the World Wildlife Fund and slipped into the report without adequate checking. Here is some background on how the error got into the report, which presumably Schellnhuber then cited in the interview with him:<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-2035-prediction-himalayan-glaciers.html<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/ipcc-slips-on-himalayan-i_b_429998.html<br /><br />As Schellnhuber and others concede, it is important to avoid this kind of mistake due to credibility concerns. But you cannot dismiss everything else because of a single error or even several errors. They have to be placed in context. The fact that such errors occur warrants caution and appropriate skepticism, not climate change denial. That is the calm, balanced, and wise approach to such matters.<br /><br />Now, can you please provide the links I requested? Thanks<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21371043626141744412015-06-18T20:02:29.042-04:002015-06-18T20:02:29.042-04:00Anonymous 2, here is a report on one of Schnellbau...Anonymous 2, here is a report on one of Schnellbaumber's blunders on the Himalayan ice melt he claimed by 2035:<br /><br />"New Film Shows Hans Schellnhuber Claiming “Himalayan 2035 Glacier Melt Was “Very Easy To Calculate”<br /><br />Today we know that this claim should have been a very easy-to-detect - gross blunder."<br /><br />- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/08/new-film-shows-hans-schellnhuber-claiming-himalayan-2035-glacier-melt-was-very-easy-to-calculate/#sthash.h1CjXbY0.dpuf<br /><br /> JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73526951177774305002015-06-18T20:00:11.572-04:002015-06-18T20:00:11.572-04:00Anonymous 2, simply Google "Hans Joachim Sche...Anonymous 2, simply Google "Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, atheist" and you will come up with numerous citations. Therefore, if he is not an atheist, I am sure that he will be on record as denying this. However, I haven't been able to find any such disclaimer from him. Can you link me to one?<br /><br />Prolifers are pointing to the Pope's appointees and say: <br /><br />"One concern among pro-life advocates was that two of the pope’s environmental advisers have advocated for population control methods such as abortion, contraception and sterilization. Pro-lifers are referring to economist Jeffrey Sachs and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.<br /><br />Sachs and Schellnhuber were both involved in crafting a Vatican document claiming that “[f]ossil fuel exploitation has also taken a huge toll on human well being.”<br /><br />“They are both radical neo-Malthusian de-populationists. I don’t say that lightly,” Westen said.<br /><br />“Jeffrey Sachs is an explicitly abortion-promoting population control fanatic. And how can the Vatican work with this man when they believe abortion to be murder?” Westen asked. “But Schellnhuber, the German is even worse. He’s on record as suggesting the earth has a carrying capacity of under 1 billion people. What he proposes to do with the other six billion is anyone’s guess.”<br /><br />Sachs, who now heads Columbia University’s Earth Institute, has been a staunch proponent of slowing world population growth, especially in poor developing nations in Africa and Asia. In a 2004 article, Sachs said governments should do away with programs to encourage having children.<br /><br />“We should intensify our efforts to slow population growth through voluntary means, and we should recognize that levelling off the Earth’s population now would add to human happiness and strengthen environmental sustainability later,” Sachs wrote in 2004.<br /><br />In 2011, however, Sachs advocated for a maximum three-child policy in Nigeria to stave off ecological disaster.<br /><br />Schellnhuber, on the other hand, is seen as more extreme by pro-lifers because of his argument that the world is overpopulated by 6 billion people — for reference there are about 7 billion people on the planet.<br /><br />“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something — namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” Dr. Schellnhuber said in 2009, according to The New York Times.<br /><br />In a 2008 interview with PHOENIX TV, Schellnhuber said the “earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050.”<br /><br />“You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe,” he added. “When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”<br /><br />Schellnhuber served as a climate policy advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and is a visiting professor at Oxford University.”<br /><br />https://stream.org/pro-lifers-pope-rejects-population-control-abortion-solutions-global-warming/<br /><br />The New York Times report is here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/?_r=1 <br /><br />The full report is a video in German, so I can't help you there.<br /><br />Doing your research for you I was able to read some quite interesting comments. Various people have commented they think that if he [Schellnhuber] so worried about the planet being overpopulated then he should help the situation by removing himself. Other reports highlight the big mistake made by climatewarmers that the dates given for their belief that the poles will melt are all factually incorrect - and Schellnhuber admits this to his embarrassment in the New York Times.<br /><br />Others point out that Schellnhuber and others who are making a BIG LIVING out of the climatewarming agenda attend heaps of conferences travelling in large jets etc. How hypocritical is that?<br /><br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47570142466824874782015-06-18T17:23:32.710-04:002015-06-18T17:23:32.710-04:00Anon. Jan:
And yet again, it seems that you fai...Anon. Jan: <br /><br /><br />And yet again, it seems that you fail to put the language in context:<br /><br />Before this passage according to the NYT report Schellnhuber said:<br /><br />“[I]f the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated.<br /><br />I think you will find that he was not advocating population control so much as control of greenhouse emissions. I have tried to find the full text of his speech on the internet but without success. You seem to have access to it. Can you please provide us with a link? <br /><br />Again, I could not find anything about his being an atheist. But my internet skills are not that great. So, again please provide us with a link. Thanks<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-30679430974437456432015-06-18T16:17:19.670-04:002015-06-18T16:17:19.670-04:00Anonymous 2, I think the context of Episcopal Bish...Anonymous 2, I think the context of Episcopal Bishop Benhase's letter is pretty clear---two people should have the right to choose to whom they wish to be married. What is perhaps more disconcerting is how "fluid" the definition of sexual morality is in that Church---just a matter of putting it to a vote, we'll resolve it for at least the next three years (their annual convention is every three years). No one should be surprised if they formally "vote" for that at their annual convention later this month. I've heard complaints from fellow Episcopalians that he is more liberal than they originally thought (with the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia---or southern Georgia in reality---more conservative than the traditionally liberal Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta). Nowhere in his statement does he say "marriage is...and always will be---between a man and a woman." But no one should be shocked by his liberalism---he was, after all, a priest previously in the very liberal Episcopal Diocese of Washington (as in DC, not the state), where liberal political correctness has long run rampant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41582863052466967272015-06-18T10:28:55.898-04:002015-06-18T10:28:55.898-04:00Schellenhuber is just as dishonest as all liberal ...Schellenhuber is just as dishonest as all liberal scientists, picking and choosing data to support their preconceived ideas.Angry Augustinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558209425377293588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54310264518069293232015-06-18T09:42:03.538-04:002015-06-18T09:42:03.538-04:00Anonymous 2, here is the full quote of what John S...Anonymous 2, here is the full quote of what John Schellnhuber said - the New York Times only published part of what he said which has perhaps lulled you into a false sense of security - understandable given the credentials of the New York Times.<br /><br />" Hans Joachim Schellnhuber<br />In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.<br /><br />What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.<br /><br />Already with the current world population of 6.6 billion people, an overuse of resources is taking place. In the year 2050, 9.4 billion people will be living on the planet.<br /><br />The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode."<br /><br />So if we're around in 2050 we can all watch the planet explode or perhaps just jump off before this happens?<br /><br />As regards whether or not he is an atheist - all the news reports are saying he is, including that august body the New York Times which you rely on - so I will quote them:<br /><br />"German scientist John Schellnhuber, an atheist, is credited with coming up with the goal to keep global warming from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels."<br /><br />Perhaps you can find a statement where he denies being an atheist?<br /><br />JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34984144305227391652015-06-18T04:27:49.611-04:002015-06-18T04:27:49.611-04:00Mark
There is common belief over here that Americ...Mark<br /><br />There is common belief over here that Americans do not understand irony. You have just reinforced this.<br /><br />Anon 2<br /><br />'Climate change deniers' has a nicely pejorative ring to it, like 'holocaust deniers' However, those who are rightly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change don't deny its existence - in fact the crux of their argument is that it has always existed. Slandering one's opponents is usually a sign that one's own argument is flawed. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50562370755065873472015-06-18T01:56:12.955-04:002015-06-18T01:56:12.955-04:00"the community of climate change deniers"..."the community of climate change deniers"<br /><br />First off, no one denies climate change. The issue is "man-made" climate change. Second, what confidence you must have in your "science" that no one is allowed to question so-called "consensus" and that you must call people names and demonize them for doing so. Because of course science has nothing to do with asking questions. Darn that Galileo and Einstein -- how dare they have questioned the scientific consensus of their day!Charles Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-85830958748429484322015-06-18T01:48:57.735-04:002015-06-18T01:48:57.735-04:00Dear Father M,
It is a good thing you were not at...Dear Father M,<br /><br />It is a good thing you were not at Vatican I. I'm sure you would have been in Cardinal Manning's Ultramontanist camp wishing the Pope to make one infallible statement every day before breakfast. As for Father Z, he was obviously joking and teasing the liberal dissenters with a little bit of their own logic. I am ready to give the requisite religious submission of will and intellect to any statements of faith or morals of the Pope, but certainly science and application of general moral issues to specific policy carries much room for prudential and respectful disagreement, which I think it is authoritarian of you to suggest that one cannot voice such. You paint with far too broad a brush. There certainly are some bloggers who are patently disrespectful to the office of the Pope with offensive names and so forth (Mundabor and Verrechio come to mind), but Father Z has been by far one of the more balanced blogs when it has come to the perplexing and disturbing actions of our current Pontiff. Charles Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24530459630970524822015-06-17T23:40:35.045-04:002015-06-17T23:40:35.045-04:00The 2020 USA Census should be a hoot to read. Is ...The 2020 USA Census should be a hoot to read. Is everyone going to have to submit to a DNA test for Gender and Racial identification? The race is on to be the most minor of minorities!<br /><br />Twenty, thirty years ago the proponents of all these "rights" would label someone as CRAZY to suggest what would happen is what is happening now. Well, here we are, still slipping down that slope that would "never" appear.<br /><br />To think that all this is the result of trying to "help" people...Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-48820325359451043572015-06-17T22:21:56.566-04:002015-06-17T22:21:56.566-04:00Mark:
I share your instinct for skepticism here b...Mark:<br /><br />I share your instinct for skepticism here but it’s actually hard to know for sure. It could be sarcasm I suppose.<br /> <br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.com