Luck had nothing to do with it. He studied and observed. He was right and the church was flat out wrong. Are you really going to insist the church was not wrong? Do you think the earth is flat?

There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming he and other people should know at

hseneker.blogspot.com

The discussion is too long to post here, but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

“How’s the flat you’re living in in London, Jock?” asks his mother when he calls home to Aberdeen.
“It’s okay,” he replies, “but the woman next door keeps screaming and crying all night and the guy on the other side keeps banging his head on the wall.”
“Never you mind,” says his mother, “don’t you let them get to you, just ignore them.”
“Aye, that I do,” he says, “I just keep playing my bagpipes.”

Courtesy of Sickipedia.org: http://www.sickipedia.org/racism/scottish#ixzz3YSI1ZFsx

In this article the “scientist” uses the term “greenhouse gas”, so he is not actually a scientist. “Greenhouse Gas” is an oxymoron. Greenhouses allow radiation and inhibit convection. Any gas that inhibits convection is by definition, not a gas.

It is true that atmospheric gases average the temperature, but water vapor is almost all of that effect. Carbon Dioxide contributes about 3% to averaging and 95% of Carbon Dioxide is from plants. So a 50% reduction of Carbon Dioxide would only affect the temperature a fraction of a degree for a few hours.

If that is not enough, all living things benefit from temperature averaging. For example, wild swings in temperature are used to pasteurize milk. If you want to kill something, wild termperature swings are pretty effective.

CO2 tracks temperature (not vice-versa). More plants grow when it is warmer, and plants account for 95% of the Carbon Dioxide. Scientists have used that fact for decades to determine the temperature of the Earth thousands of years ago. You don’t want to be against science, do you?

Anyone who knows anything about science knows that there is no scientific fact that supports man-made global warming.

http://www.utilikilts.com/

I also have a dress kilt, Campbell plaid.

Try the Tannahill Weavers for a more modern arrangment, softer on the ear:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RSuJ1fh2Ew

Pur, pur, crippl’d lass…

If Urban was on the side of empiricism and logic, why did John Paul II, after a lengthy and thorough review of the evidence, acquit Galileo in 1992? Galileo never claimed to have a lock on divine truth; he merely put forth his arguments in an entertaining way in the common language, which encouraged his work to be widely read. With regard to Urban, falsely assigning literal truth to scripture has been a common errand of fools for ages in addition to being heretical in any reasonable interpretation of Judeo-Christian philosophy in which only God is to be worshipped, not the writings of unknown men.

Galileo had logic on his side in the form of Occam’s Razor. A Copernican heliocentric solar system was far simpler that a geocentric Ptolemaic solar system when Galileo’s telescopic observations of the moon, Jupiter’s moons, and Venus were taken into account. If he had factored in Kepler’s refinement of planetary orbits being elliptical instead of circular, there would have been little room for argument against him.

While science is indeed never settled, there are certain topics not worth debating. Heliocentrism was still debateable in Galileo’s day, but he was a great scientist and put forth a vigorous defense of Copernicanism based on sound science. If the Church can admit it was wrong, I think it’s safe for you to agree with them.

The Church’s admission of wrongdoing came less than a quarter century ago. Francis would be a fool to venture into the realm of science so soon after such admission, especially on a topic that is so hotly questioned, except by the close-minded elitists who stand to benefit from a manufactured global crisis. How much of a donation to the Clinton Foundation would I need to make to earn a nice income off anthropogenic global warming?

Old Galileo just couldn’t resist a swipe at the faction of the clergy that opposed him, and he slipped a totally unnecessary allusion into his writing, despite being warned by his benefactor Urban, to avoid being political.

I cannot imagine anyone acting like that (snorkle, choke, snaarfle)

Don’t be shy.

Jaaazus, I’m amung the hathein’…

I am glad that the Heartland Institute is getting involved. I have listened to many of their YouTube videos.

I think the pope can cope and desires not to be a misanthrope.

So it’s wrong in a sense to say AGW (anthropogenic global warming, now renamed “Climate Change”) was ever “Science” as it was really only ever hypothesis, not advanced theory, and certainly not the next step, scientific Law. Gore skipped all the testing and declared “settled science”, a purely manufactured belief supported only by faith, rooted in opportunism.

So I’m arguing “Climate Change” is not “politicized science”, as even that label is ambiguous. AGW was a politically manufactured crisis from the get go, established as religion with Gore’s full of lies movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

The movie title itself labels his movement as a religion, in that he doesn’t call it FACT, he subjugates his alleged science to being locked in as “settled”, because Pope Gore declares ex cathedra … “The Truth”, not to be messed with by mere mortals. Even his imagery portrays himself as a sort of Lord of the Earth.
https://expresselevatortohell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg

As to the Pope, I’m not sure if he’s joining forces with the commie warmists, or trying to co-opt some of their zeal. In any case, he seems to be trivializing the alleged purposes of the church. Of course the SJWs have been infiltrating the churches for some time, so this perhaps mollifies them a little.