Dear runner,

Not caring about the future of the planet and what we are leaving for future generations because we don't want to inconvenience ourselves is the very definition of moral bankruptcy.

You exhibit this in spades.

The prime figurehead of the Christian faith wrote a deep and moving argument for action on Climate Change;

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

“It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter, which is now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal, immensity and urgency of the challenge we face. I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows. I will then consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent. I will then attempt to get to the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms but also its deepest causes. This will help to provide an approach to ecology which respects our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings. In light of this reflection, I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which would involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy. Finally, convinced as I am that change is impossible without motivation and a process of education, I will offer some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience.”

Perhaps you might take the time to read it and understand what true morality is.

SR wrote:"I have shown you how the data does clearly show the reality moreover it shows how predictions made in the past about the temperature arc have been spot on."

Well what you showed was a carefully selected set of predictions that somewhat matched reality. But a few selected out of 100s means little.

I showed you a different version of the same issue which showed that fewer than 5% of model runs are within cooee of the truth. You, of course, ignored it.

A little more to ponder, or in your case, ignore.

"NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind...."
We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold."

"The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today."

Now Foxy t'other day was breathlessly telling us that NASA was predicting continued warming. And now we find that another part of NASA is saying the opposite. All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media et al breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s makes great sense to take a step back and recognise that we have neither the knowledge or skill to understand what's really going on and to, therefore wait until we do know what's going on before ripping the economy apart.

http://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

mhaze,

You need to read several articles
from NASA to get the bigger picture.

Here's another link that may help:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Dear mhaze,

IPCC modelling and that from the 'father of global warming' James Hansen are now 'carefully selected'?

Give me a break. I couldn't have gotten more pointy end if I tried.

I wonder how the climate hysterics feel about being in the same camp as a 16-year old girl with Asperger's syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder and selective mutism.

Asperger's Syndrome, with its " all- absorbing interest in specific topics" (in this case, an obsession with climate change) is common enough in our imperfect, failing society. Selective Mutism is a childhood anxiety disorder characterized by a child's inability to speak and communicate effectively in select social settings, such as school. Perhaps it's not just children who suffer from it, and these unhappy climateers should be tested for the disease and Aspergers before great wads of public money are handed out to them.

ttbn,

Absolutely brilliant suggestion.

When's your doctor's appointment?