Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
The issue is not global warming. The issue is how we deal with uncertainty.

but it **might be **extremely important. Since we do not know, we are obligated to do what we can to reduce our impact on global warming.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the actions being proposed (cap and trade) will kill our economy and put millions more out of work, while at the same time making a few rich people even richer. Why do you think Goldman Sachs (the NY investment bank) has set itself up the be the broker for carbon credits? And Al Gore keeps hyping the man made global warming myth?

News Flash: They do not care about the earth! They just want money and they don’t care if they kill the economy and put you out of work to get it!

And you want to let them do it because something “might” be important.
 
justanotherman said:
Well the Church does teach that we are responsible of the environment around us and should take good care of God’s creation.

Also if I may remind CAF, global warming is a worldly matter not just a US matter. Stop making a political issue of it. If a certain party is using global warming as an excuse for certain malicious intentions than don’t refer to the issue as “global warming” but rather by the political agenda’s name. I’m just saying this because for the non-US citizens of CAF things get really confusing.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, about global warming being a worldly matter, then why are India and China not participating in cutting back on coal-burning?

In fact, we are taking care of the environment. Air and water have never been cleaner, except where government is not minding its own facilities. But air pollution has been on the decline since 1967.

The fact is that AGW is a fake issue, and the rest of the world is not falling for it. Except for Spain, and they went bankrupt in about two years because they went with wind mill power.
 
justanotherman said:
Well the Church does teach that we are responsible of the environment around us and should take good care of God’s creation.
Click to expand...
She does indeed … but she leaves it up to the individual to determine how best to achieve that goal. By even asking the question of whether a Catholic can disagree about global warming one has to assume that the scientific questions have been answered and that how best to care for the environment is a known fact. This is absolutely untrue. The theory of AGW is still just a theory and one that is hotly disputed; the Church has no position on the scientific questions involved. This is a science problem and a political issue; there is no moral component to it at all.

Ender
 
“So a lot of scientists – and especially politicians, actors, and musicians – are really, really super certain we have to do something about this ‘global climate warming change,’ as they call it, but seem unable to convince the average man it’s not a bunch of mumbo jumbo – especially to the extent that everyone is going to agree to economy-massacring policies. That seems perfectly rational to me; if I’m wrong, and we’re destined for doom but the only way to live is to be a bunch of savages, I’d rather be dead. … So I’m happy to punt this possible crisis down the road and worry about the more concrete and better understood problem that the sun is eventually going to kill us all. Which apparently makes me like someone who denies the murders of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. See, the other day, Paul McCartney (who long ago participated in creating a song warning of the global warming crisis, the chilling ‘Here Comes the Sun’) compared skepticism about global warming to Holocaust denial. And he’s certainly not the first. … Do these people not understand what the Holocaust was? We’re talking about a coordinated attempt to exterminate the Jews. Millions of them were rounded up and sent to forced labor camps and killed in gas chambers. It’s horrific beyond belief. How could one compare the temperature possibly rising a couple degrees to people being put in ovens? What low opinion must those people have of Jews – of their fellow human beings? … The Holocaust was the nadir of humanity, the worst man can be to his fellow man, and it’s not some political point to be tossed around because you’re super duper certain your issue is really, really important. If the people worrying about global warming want to convince others, maybe they should reflect a bit more on how to be less repugnant about it.”
–columnist Frank J. Fleming

But wait, maybe going back to living like savages wouldn’t be too bad. At least for the male part of uncivilization. Like Chief Two-Eagles once said, There would be “no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water, women do all work, Medicine man free. Men spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”
 
lynnvinc said:
The gold standard of science is not the book, but the peer-reviewed article. .
Click to expand...
Peer reviewed articles are articles reviewed by your buddies.

Your buddies are not going to say or write anything critical, … BECAUSE next year YOU get to review THEIR article.

It’s incestuous.

The best thing we actually have are internet reviews. Of course, if it is a friendly Web site or blog, then the site owner will delete any reviews or comments they don’t like.

Sorry … the peer reviewed article is out. Just another full employment ploy for members of the guild.
 
Monty61 said:
Unfortunately, the actions being proposed (cap and trade) will kill our economy and put millions more out of work, while at the same time making a few rich people even richer…
Click to expand...
Now we’re getting somewhere in this discussion. I too am against Cap & Trade, mainly bec it will not be very effective in reducing GHGs soon enough avert serious harms, but also because it does just what you say – takes money from the poor and gives to the rich.

We do, however, need something, because the people committed to reducing their GHGs (by driving less, etc) will only work to reduce the prices of fossil fuels (under supply & demand setting the price), encouraging others to use more.

There are 3 things that could be done, aside from Cap & Trade, that would be more effective:
  1. Subsidies and tax-breaks for coal and oil could be eliminated. Afterall, if I have alternative power for my home and car, why should I pay for others to pollute the planet on April 15th. Perhaps someone could start a Green Tea Party on this issue. However, even if there are big marches in the streets by all parties, the politicians simply are NOT going to eliminate or even reduce these tax-breaks and subsidies; they are ALL bought and paid for by the fossil fuels industries, Republican and Democrate politicos alike (my own senator receives the most, bar none).
  2. A “Fee and Dividend” program could be created – they put a fee on every barrel of oil and ton of coal as it comes out of the ground or into port. The revenue raised would then be divied up and go back to all Americans. That’s feasible, just as they gave us money back 2 years ago, and those who don’t pay taxes or have bank accounts for direct deposit could be given debit cards with that amount each month. In this case there would be no net loss of money – people could spend it either to offset the higher energy bills, or could use it to become more energy efficient.
    The U.S. Bishops have expressed concern that in any climate bill we consider, there should be provision for sending funds to poor nations suffering from AGW harms (we break it, we buy it, plus it’s the humanitarian thing to do). So, perhaps a portion of the revenues raised could go for that.
    There is no strictly “Fee and Dividend” bill (as I have outlined above) under consideration, but there is a “Cap and Dividend” bill that keeps the “cap” part of Cap & Trade," but pays much of the revenues raised from that back to the people, and the other portion into pumping up alternative energy and energy efficiency/conservation. See capanddividend.org/
  3. I read recently another critique of Cap & Trade (and it applies to Cap & Dividend), and that is people are just going to spend more and buy polluting energy if there is no cheaper alternative. So it is important also to have programs to help lower costs of alternative energy, and information programs so people can learn about all the great off-the-shelf measures there already are (most of them quite cost-effective even under current conditions). It seem the Cap & Dividend bill do address this issue.
Meanwhile, I am calling on all good Christians and people of good will to do whatever they can in their own lives to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alternate energy when/where affordable/feasible. Which we should be doing anyway for religious reasons – living the materially simple life, unattached to worldly allurements.

Bless you all.
 
Climate Change is a Fact, Pollution is a Fact. I don’t know about Global Warming, but I do think we need to eradicate Pollution as it is killing off frog species and bees. Frogs and bees are the main base for most ecosystems around the world. I do not know if Climate Change is good or bad, but I do know that Pollution is bad.
 
MariaTS said:
Climate Change is a Fact, Pollution is a Fact. I don’t know about Global Warming, but I do think we need to eradicate Pollution as it is killing off frog species and bees. Frogs and bees are the main base for most ecosystems around the world. I do not know if Climate Change is good or bad, but I do know that Pollution is bad.
Click to expand...
If you have proof that pollution is killing off frogs and bees you need to publish a paper immediately because science has been unable to prove this and frankly is at a loss as what is causing it,
 
MariaTS said:
Climate Change is a Fact, Pollution is a Fact. I don’t know about Global Warming, but I do think we need to eradicate Pollution as it is killing off frog species and bees. Frogs and bees are the main base for most ecosystems around the world. I do not know if Climate Change is good or bad, but I do know that Pollution is bad.
Click to expand...
The emmision of CO2 is not pollution, it is the natural result of the oxidation of carbon and occurs with all living animals, and is necessary to support plant life. Otherwise I agree that we need to manage and steward the use of the earth to sustain it and the future standards of living for all God’s creatures. But stopping the combustion of carbon is as ridiculous as making the cows stop farting.
 
estesbob said:
If you have proof that pollution is killing off frogs and bees you need to publish a paper immediately because science has been unable to prove this and frankly is at a loss as what is causing it,
Click to expand...
They already have proven this with scientific papers. Just because you read right-wing propaganda and nothing else does not mean that this has not been proven.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Peer reviewed articles are articles reviewed by your buddies.

Your buddies are not going to say or write anything critical, … BECAUSE next year YOU get to review THEIR article.

It’s incestuous.

The best thing we actually have are internet reviews. Of course, if it is a friendly Web site or blog, then the site owner will delete any reviews or comments they don’t like.

Sorry … the peer reviewed article is out. Just another full employment ploy for members of the guild.
Click to expand...
I’m into peer-review myself – both in publishing articles and in reviewing them (and I’ve rejected a fair number outright). Peer-review is blind; here is a statement from a journal for which I just accepted to do a review:
To ensure the integrity of the blind peer-review for submission to this journal, every effort should be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken with regard to the text and the file properties:


  1. *]The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with “Author” and year used in the references and footnotes, instead of the authors’ name, article title, etc.

    etc

    Peer-review is a GREAT process to achieving the best science possible. The reviewer make hard-nosed criticism and point to ways articles can be corrected and improved. I doubt many scientists get their articles accepted “as is.” I know I have NEVER had any of my articles accepted “as is,” but have had to make revisions – sometime total rewrites. I’ve heard from scientists saying they have had to change their language to reflect less certainty in some claims.

    It is a tough, tought process, and most articles get rejected. It’s not for the faint of heart, but for those with fortitude and mortification to keep on trying and trying.

    Do articles with fallacious claims pass peer-review – yes, sometimes. It is not a totally failsafe way of ensuring the best science to date, but it is the best method we have for ensuring that. As soon as a fallacious claim is made, the other scientist are over it like sharks, and it won’t stand unless it has the evidence and rational explanation to support it.

    Does science make mistakes – yes, and other scientists will catch them. For instance, we once thought the world was flat and the sun crossed over the sky (all very good deductions based on their observations & evidence way back then). Science is progressive.

    Meanwhile, as you await for some real findings/theories to disprove AGW (and I sorely hope that is forthcoming, for all our sakes), go ahead and try mitigating – you’ll see you save money and have a better life. Guaranteed!
 
markbrumbaugh said:
The emmision of CO2 is not pollution, it is the natural result of the oxidation of carbon and occurs with all living animals, and is necessary to support plant life. Otherwise I agree that we need to manage and steward the use of the earth to sustain it and the future standards of living for all God’s creatures. But stopping the combustion of carbon is as ridiculous as making the cows stop farting.
Click to expand...
With more trees, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
MariaTS said:
They already have proven this with scientific papers. Just because you read right-wing propaganda and nothing else does not mean that this has not been proven.
Click to expand...
Then you should have no problem providing a link.
 
In ponds with added nutrients, snail biomass increased by 50 percent and the snails increased parasite egg production by up to eight-fold, he said. The infection rate in frogs rose by two- to five-times in those tanks, Johnson said.
Click to expand...
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925130649.htm

That at least implies that nutrient pollution is affecting the frogs.
Amphibians are excellent indicators of the quality of the overall environment, as they are very sensitive to perturbations in ecosystems.
Click to expand...
solcomhouse.com/frogs.htm

Frogs dying off means the quality of the environment is decreasing.
“Looking upstream and downstream from wastewater-treatment plants, we see there’s obviously been an impact by some of the chemicals discharged in the wastewater,” said Vicki S. Blazer, an author of the Geological Survey study. “Things like pesticides, herbicides and flame retardants.”
Click to expand...
She added that although the Potomac Basin study did not measure high levels of estrogen in the water, either from pharmaceutical waste or other sources, “that’s certainly a concern.”
Click to expand...
The research was in part drawn up to identify endocrine disruptors, or compounds that can interfere with reproductive hormones.
Click to expand...
It focused on specific chemicals, including atrazine, a herbicide used in agriculture and on suburban lawns and gardens, and chemicals used to give fragrance to soap and cosmetics.
Click to expand...
The latest Geological Survey study, while suggesting possible links, did not directly correlate the prevalence of intersex fish and the presence of these chemicals in wastewater, Dr. Blazer said. The effects of those chemicals remain unclear.
Click to expand...
A study in 2002 led by Tyrone B. Hayes at Berkeley found that leopard frogs exposed to atrazine in the laboratory had retarded testicular development and, in some cases, immature eggs in the testes.
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08frog.html

This shows that intersex deformaties are occuring in frogs. Intersex deformities decrease an animals ability to reproduce.

These sources show that, at the very least, chemical pollution is damaging frog species.
 
MariaTS said:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925130649.htm

That at least implies that nutrient pollution is affecting the frogs.

solcomhouse.com/frogs.htm

Frogs dying off means the quality of the environment is decreasing.

nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08frog.html

This shows that intersex deformaties are occuring in frogs. Intersex deformities decrease an animals ability to reproduce.

These sources show that, at the very least, chemical pollution is damaging frog species.
Click to expand...
None of these links state that pollution is the problem. In fact they verify what I said-we simply don’t know
 
Jean_1958 said:
Hi,

The Catholic Church does have an opinion/position on global warming. Please check out this link:

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html

Peace.

Jean
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s an OPINION

As a meteorologist of 30+ years, 3/4 of those in my profession know man made global warming is just that. A man-made hoax. Baloney. Bull. Fabricated. A lie. Scientifically devoid of proof.

But we will always have those uneducated in the science tell us scientists we don’t know what we’re talking about. 🙂 Where would we be with all the actors in Hollywood acting as scientists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top