“...sin is the language of Christianity, but that “chet” – the Jewish concept of sin – means “missing the mark,” and matches with the claims made by the Episcopal leader.”
“If you understand the science and its implications, and yet, you continue to live in such a way that your (Greenhouse Gas) emissions are destroying the capacity of the planet to be a safe place, I would say that your actions ‘miss the mark’ if your goal is to live a decent and just life,” Zoloth said.
So the poorest among us are the most righteous? When you reduce your carbon footprint to mine I might begin to take you seriously. My tiny carbon footprint makes me more righteous than you?
Climate change is a moral challenge - it is one of opportunity cost. Would you not agree that if the pursuit of lowering our carbon footprint is an exercise in chasing a phantom that we are then wasting billions of dollars that could have been spent on things that we CAN do something about? (disease, poverty, potable water, food distribution etc)
Would that misdirection of resources then be a ‘chet’?
Skeptics of dangerous manmade climate change (DMMCC) have been pointing this out for years and IF the they are correct then the sinners are the ones who are refusing to listen to them right now!
And to whom do the skeptics refer to back up their assertions? None other than Mother Nature who has the only opinion that counts because she is never wrong. So let’s look at temperature over the last 120 years.
And so should the global climate models which do no better locally or regionally than they do globally.
Certainly local and regional differences are expected but because of H2O not CO2. We are a water based world.
But OK, let’s do a global exercise.
The government datasets to do the calculations will be provided.
While in Hawaii in 2014 Al Gore had plenty of local plugs. He says the evidence on climate change first became clear from carbon dioxide emission monitors on top of Mauna Loa some 60 years ago.
So let’s compare 60 year periods.
If CO2 increased by 18 ppm and the Global Mean Temperature increased by .57C between 1894-1953(60 years) what would you expect the GMT to increase by in the following 60 years (1954-2013) if CO2 went up by 84 ppm?
1894-1953 18 ppm and .57C
1954-2013 84 ppm and ?.??C
That’s 4.5 times as much CO2 added in the last 60 years. This is no surprise.
According to CAGW theory should ?.??C be larger or smaller than .57C? If larger, how much larger? A little bit larger? A lot larger? What would you expect?
To check and verify use:
HADCRUT4 is an anomaly dataset so you are using the first two fields. There is a dataset on the site that explains the other fields(error bars) if you care to explore.
CO2 data post 1958
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt.
Remember that the beginning of 1954 is the end of 1953 so you must use the 1953 figure as the base year to include all 60 years.
So, what was ?.??C for 1954-2013?
What conclusion would you draw from those data?
Do the math and connect the dots.
"We cannot order men to see the truth, or prohibit them from indulging in error"
~ Max Planck, 1936
I got .40C. Is that in the range that you would have expected? In your mind is 84 ppm CO2 what is causing the climate to change?
Is this an example of the ‘unprecedented’ and ‘accelerating’ global warming we keep hearing about? Is that an example of the heat trapping superpowers attributed to CO2? Seems to me CO2 hasn’t been eating its Wheaties.
After all the fiddling and diddling with the US temp datasets that has been in the news lately I would be interested to know if you get the same numbers I did. If not then perhaps HADCRUT4 is also being manipulated. Why are there different VERSIONS of data datasets? They are not like a computer program that provides new features and corrects bugs.
I do not know how your mind works but the data above suggest to me that CO2 has little, if anything, to do with the rise in temperature over the late 20th century.
CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, is plant food. We exhale CO2 and help to feed the flora. In return they slip us oxygen of which we are rather fond in a mutually beneficial and amicable symbiotic relationship. If CO2 were dangerous would kissing be lethal?
Plants grow better, stronger, faster because of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In concluding, the U.S. research team declares that "from this remarkable 30-year archive of satellite imagery, we thus see evidence of a greening trend," which clearly indicates that the net result of the climatic and physiological effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on Earth's terrestrial plant life has in the mean been decidedly beneficial.
Apart from that CO2 has no redeeming features
To my mind the sinners are those who refuse to seriously examine the data that exonerates CO2 from its role as the temperature control knob for the planet. The BENEFITS of more CO2 in the ambient air far outweigh costs of extracting, transporting, refining, using and distributing fossil fuels.
CO2 fuels plants. We exhale CO2. We eat plants. If you like food then the social BENEFITS of CO2: PRICELESS.
Postscript
# Observing Physicist 2015-10-29 23:04
IT IS CRIMINAL that CORRECT CLIMATE SCIENCE will be REJECTED at these CLIMATE TALKS
If the radiation from one molecule of carbon dioxide in every 2,500 air molecules could actually slow the rate of cooling of Earth's surface, then the radiation from water vapour should slow the cooling at least a hundred fold, making rain forests about 50 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
The pseudo science that blames natural warming on carbon dioxide assumes that the Sun's radiation firstly warms the Earth's surface, and that radiation from these so-called "greenhouse gases" then slows the cooling. It would, but it would not make the surface hotter than the Sun's radiation could make it anywhere on Earth.
The problem climatologists have is that correct physics tells us that the Sun's radiation is nowhere near strong enough to explain the average surface temperatures on Earth, let alone on Venus, where the solar radiation reaching its surface is only a tenth as much, and yet it is over 460°C there.
Correct physics tells us that the Sun's radiation can, on average, only raise the temperature in colder regions well up in the troposphere.
Correct physics tells us that gravity forms a temperature gradient in the troposphere of a planet and that is the real reason why the surface temperature is hotter than the middle of the troposphere.
And that's why all of what climatologists say about carbon dioxide is wrong.
To me the above is just common sense - a flower that does not grow in the IPCC garden perhaps because they removed the CO2?
