AMERICA: ‘THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REVIEW’
- Comment to the North American Jesuit magazine from meteorologist Richard Savage on Jeffrey D. Sach’s article ‘Sowing the Future.’
How the church can help promote sustainable development goals
- log in or register to post comments
Professor Sachs builds his hypothesis of “sustainable development” (i.e., socialism) on a foundation of lies.
Example: “We care about carbon dioxide since it is the most important greenhouse gas…”
This is completely untrue; the “greenhouse effect” (warming of the surface due to infrared emission from greenhouse gasses) is about 33 deg C (59 deg F). 30 deg C is due to water vapor and 3 deg C is due to carbon dioxide.
As noted by Mr. Mosman, Sachs’ claims of worsening extreme weather are equally untrue.
There is, however, a climate change that can be documented: winter (DJF) temperatures across the contiguous USA, and in all 9 climate regions, are DECLINING (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news) at the rate of -1.17 deg F over the last 17 years (NOAA data).
Not only has there been NO “global warming”, our winters have gotten colder.
European winters have also been colder and snowier than in the past.
Sachs, Obama, and the UN have been spreading their lies for many years.
I’m sorry to see America magazine helping these enemies of American Catholics.
Sorry, this decade has NOT been the warmest on record.
That was the 1930’s; only massive fraud at NOAA’s Climatic Data Center supports your claim.
Steve Goddard has documented their “adjustments” of Historical Climate Network (HCN) data many times; there’s a recent instance today.
We agree the Cowtan and Wray study is quite new, but I note Judith Curry’s comment: “So I don’t think Cowtan and Wray’s analysis adds anything to our understanding of the global surface temperature field and the ‘pause.’”
As a meteorologist, I disagree that water vapor is a feedback.
As a resident of Colorado (a desert state), I’ll assure you absolute (or relative) humidity is controlled by dynamic processes in the atmosphere.
Hot and dry is the norm around here; the “feedback”argument – though untrue – is an essential aspect of the IPCC climate models – which failed to predict the current 17 year “hiatus” in warming.
We could discuss this more, of course, and I could certainly do so (in a very hostile environment at RealClimate.org), but I think my original point still stands: Jeffrey Sachs and his UN/IPCC masters do not have enough credibility on the reality of ANY human-caused “climate change” – and certainly not a catastrophic climate change – to deserve the support of America magazine and Catholics who read it as a moral guide.
I’m sorry to see America grant it to them.