Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jean_1958 said:
I…Just the way our weather has changed here in NE IL over the past 50 years tells me that global warming is real and is a cause for concern…
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of sampling error. A 50 year sample of the weather in Illinois is far, far too little to even begin addressing the question. It’s virtually meaningless, as if you used the elevation change from one side of a pebble to another to estimate the lay of the land for the next 200 miles. The fact is that the cycles are millions of years long, and we are coming out of a long period of cooler than average temperatures.

Warmer temperatures in the future are naturally expected, just as happened at the end of the precambrian, the beginning of the silurian, and the middle of the permian and cretaceous periods.
 
Let’s say the Earth is 5000 years old (we know it’s WAY older). It would be scientifically irresponsible to base such a claim on 1% of time (the last maybe 500 or so years being somewhat recorded in terms of weather patterns, and dubious at that) and on such a limited (WAY less than 1% of the inhabited earth) geographical location, not to mention an anecdotal report!
 
neophyte said:
That is not an opinion of the Catholic Church, it’s the opinion of Msgr. Celestino Migliore.
Click to expand...
That was my original observation that one priest does not a Church position make (sorry, I just watch Star Wars and feel like Yoda).

Many of the comments and writings of the Pope that deal with the environment that I have read seem to be more general on how we are called to be “good stewards” of the earth. I think it’s a giant leap to go from that to “See! The Catholic Church supports Cap-n-Trade!” I’ve heard a lot of people come to that conclusion.
 
Of course you can disagree about it: the problem with Global Warming lies in the fact that people are taking a set of scientific facts and treating one set of opinions about it as if it were a theological dogma. Global warming is a reality, and we may have contributed to it by not practicing good stewardship of the earth. This does not mean we have to take a “The sky is falling!” take on it, it just means we need to use the earth’s resources wisely and prudently.
 
Newbie2 said:
Let’s say the Earth is 5000 years old (we know it’s WAY older). It would be scientifically irresponsible to base such a claim on 1% of time (the last maybe 500 or so years being somewhat recorded in terms of weather patterns, and dubious at that) and on such a limited (WAY less than 1% of the inhabited earth) geographical location, not to mention an anecdotal report!
Click to expand...
I think that science can safely say that they have a bit more evidence than just the “recorded” history of wheather pattersn, though I will agree that some of the evidence is anechdotal. I refer to such things as "core samples from the ice caps and the ocean floor that give great insight into general patterns over many millenia.

Now data from core samples are certainly not going to give us a “decade by decade” reading of average temperature “in the northeast” but they certainly will provide an understanding of the cyclic nature of warming and cooling over many thousands of years.

Lastly I will just say, again, that climactic change may well negatively effect our civilizations but is unlikely to cause the extinction of humanity.
Besides, as Christians, we believe in the Return of Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom. Don’t we?
Let’s just do our best for now and leave the rest in His hands.

Peace
James
 
There is a huge amount of information available on the internet and in books and magazines.

Since the issue is one of science, then we need to do a little research on the science.

First, we need to review the computer models … (it’s all based on computer modeling) … and as you know you can get a computer model to do anything you want it to. The key is to verify the computer model. If you design an airplane, you use a computer model and then you do wind tunnel testing and you see if the computer model works. if it doesn’t, you adjust the computer model. Then you build actual flying prototypes … small scale at first and then full size. And you compare the actual flying experience with the computer models.

Well, the climate models have never been verified. How not scientific is that?!!!

IPCC, the UN group that “does” the computer modeling [actually, they “contract out” the work and cherry pick the stuff they want to use], has had to change the computer models several times, WITHOUT telling us WHY they had to change the computer models.

Second, all science must be transparent. In other words, everyone should have access to all the models, all the equations, all the data, all the changes, etc. BUT, what has happened is that when the modelers were asked for access to the models, they denied access. So, they had the so-called Hockey Stick. But when people asked to look at the data, the modelers said no. And then mysteriously, the Hockey Stick got dropped.

THEN, the modelers produced not a forecast, but a RANGE of forecasts of future temperature. AND they let the news media and politicians pick the LEAST LIKELY and the HIGHEST future temperature and trumpet the worst and least likely case to the heavens. The most likely case is only about one degree increase over one hundred years. And then we find that they keep modifying the computer models. So, the answer is a giant WHAT THE “HECK” IS GOING ON???

So the computer modeling of climate has very low credibility.

Third, you have to (name removed by moderator)ut data into the models. Someone named Anthony Watts decided to take a look at the data that goes into the models and found that at least 85% of the places where temperature data is collected are improperly located. The instruments pick up hot air exhaust from airconditioners or they are on large concrete pads that reflect heat up into the temperature recorders so that basically they are in ovens.

What they found is that the data that goes into the models is from one degree to five degrees too hot. So you find a rural farm area temperature recorder that is located at the local mega gasoline station with all that hot reflecting paving and car and truck exhausts and the instrument is cooked with a much higher temperature than average. Or it’s at an airport. Fifty years ago, the airport had a grass runway and it was cool, but today it’s all concrete and you can’t breathe because of the hot jet engine exhausts.

So if you put artificially high temperatures into the already faulty computer models, you end up with forecasts that are grossly inflated.

AND then there is a deliberate ignoring of 1) natural solar cycles … the sun’s output varies enough to affect the earth. We don’t know fully how the sun works, but we know when the sun spots are few, the earth’s temp drops. Sun spots seem to occur in cycles. And for the past year or so, there have been almost NO sun spots. So the earth’s temp has been much lower. 2) The earth has many different temperature cycles. Including a 1500 year cycle. We don’t fully understand these cycles.

The earth’s atmosphere has many different gases. The most influential is actually water vapor, but some folks claim that carbon dioxide is the most influential and they say that carbon dioxide comes from man made activities. But actually, BY FAR, the largest source of carbon dioxide is from the oceans. You can buy a copy of “A Primer on CO2 and Climate, second edition” by Howard Hayden.

Sorry for being so long winded, but it’s a complicated subject.

Nevertheless, you as an individual can research the subject.

Check out www.surfacestations.org and also www.wattsupwiththat.com

There is also Environment & Climate News at www.heartland.org

And www.sepp.org which is published by Dr. S. Fred Singer who invented modern satellite based climatology. He gets attacked because an oil company sent him an unsolicited $10,000 but that kind of money doesn’t last long and you can look at the credentials of his attackers, many of which have zero scientific background.
 
fish90 said:
Is disagreeing about Global Warming the same as disagreeing about the Iraq War?
Click to expand...
No, the issues are not the same.

Global Warming is a scientific hypothesis, with quite a bit of hot air (pun intended!) on both sides of the debate. Contra Al Gore, the debate is far from over.

The Iraq War is an armed conflict which is actually going on!

Can persons of good faith disagree about both issues? Certainly. But one issue is an hypothesis and the other a reality of life!
 
fish90 said:
With respect, please be careful and remember charity and respect in your responses.

I have some evidence just from personal observation.

1.Years ago, the scientists argued in favor of global cooling, then came global warming and now it is climate change.
2. This was the coolest summer in my memory.
3. The last winter was well below normal temperatures than previous winters.
4. There was more snow this year than I can remember.

I do have my doubts. Jean, please remember there are also scientists who disagree with you as well.

God Bless
Click to expand...
  1. Actually very few of them were arguing in favor of cooling most were arguing in favor of warming ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
  2. If your in the united states it is quite possible it likely was. However it is important to remember that the Unitedstates is but a tiny fraction of the world. For instance July was the second hottest july on record global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second_warmest_july_on_record.html
  3. Last winter was also an la nina year which typically contributes to cooler temperatures. Add that to the fact that we are in the solar minimum side of the solar cycle. And I will have to check later when my internet is working better but I believe 2008 was still the 10th hottest year on record.
  4. Same point as number three more or less though it should be noted that global warming may increase precipation in some areas.
 
The issue is not global warming. The issue is how we deal with uncertainty.

Fact: Certain scientific models associate carbon emission, etc, with environmental instability and global warming.
Fact: There are signs of environmental instability and global warming.
Uncertainty: Are these signs associated with pollutant carbon emission?

We cannot wait to act until this uncertainty is cleared up. We need not act as if climate change is the only important issue, 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.
 
It’s really about science. Not about uncertainty.

Some of this is borrowed from a friend … but here goes:

The so-called “Precautionary Principle” continues to be implied and is applied in a consistently one-sided manner.

Unfortunately for those who believe that “the science settled”, and in “the consensus”, science clearly continues to evolve. We’ve seen, for example, in the past week several new articles that identify new twists in our understanding of “climate science,” some of which appear rather significant and more likely than not to be nowhere close to being incorporated into the Global Climate Models.

So,there is really no justification to roll back civilization to the pre-industrial era, especially unilaterally. It’s clear the science keeps advancing, and that substantial uncertainties remain. Here are some of the articles I’ve seen:

One physicist has discovered – get this – that CO2 helps plants grow. No lie! This is among today’s “breaking news” on Science Daily. The scientist is quoted as saying “it’s weird” (as I recall). The discovery is also called both “unexpected” and “unforeseen.” I guess those of us that knew commercial greenhouses used elevated CO2 to help plants grow were merely mistaken until now, now that a “real scientist” – a physicist – [re]discovered it. Here’s the link: sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm (there’s also a short video)

[This magnificent – sarcasm – physicist has just discovered PHOTOSYNTHESIS … FRESHMAN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY.

We also have TWO recent studies out of NCAR related to solar variations and climate change, one of which was discussed on this very board in the past week… (printer-friendly PDFs are attached for both of these news clips; only the first paragraph is presented below.)

Solar Cycle Linked To Global Climate
ScienceDaily (July 17, 2009) — Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm

Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009) — Subtle connections between the 11-year solar cycle, the stratosphere, and the tropical Pacific Ocean work in sync to generate periodic weather patterns that affect much of the globe, according to research appearing this week in the journal Science. The study can help scientists get an edge on eventually predicting the intensity of certain climate phenomena, such as the Indian monsoon and tropical Pacific rainfall, years in advance.

So these brilliant [sarcasm, again] scientists have just had the scales fall from their eyes.

This is basic stuff that the rest of the planet has known for decades or centuries (in the case of photosynthesis). And we are jn solar cycle #24 … so we earthlings have been numbering them for HUNDREDS OF YEARS - 11 1/2 years per cycle times 23 cycles equals 265 years.

Where / on what planet has this scientist been? Don’t know if the article was “peer reviewed” or not.

I gag.
 
Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

I find it disturbing that this question is even asked as it assumes that there is some Catholic position with which one could disagree. There isn’t and it is a bit disconcerting that there should be any uncertainty on this point. The Church has no doctrinal position on Global Warming, or, more specifically, the Church does not oblige us to believe that the scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is valid.

I’m confident that future Catholics will be as unconcerned that the Church took no position on global warming as we are that she didn’t oblige earlier generations to believe in phlogiston.

Ender
 
It is undeniable that scientists do not agree on whether the earth is warming or, if so, what’s causing it.

It is undeniable to me, and to all who live around here, that the climate has been cooling significantly for the last three years; this year most of all. Call that “weather” if you want, but it’s much cooler than normal.

It is undeniable that, if “cap and trade” is passed, the cost of energy will go up. The only question is by how much.

It is undeniable that neither China nor India have any intention of reducing CO2 emissions.

It is undeniable that China surpasses the U.S. right now in emissions, and adds a new coal-fired plant every ten days.

Now, when we realize that “global warming” is not a certainty, and that “cap and trade” will do nothing to change it, but that the cost of heating a poor person’s house in Maine (and everywhere else in the U.S.) will go up, we have to think through just what kind of “social justice” we’re engaging in when we support things like “cap and trade”.
 
Holy See on Protecting Global Climate
“Educate in Ecological Responsibility”

NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2008 - Here is the message Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered today before the Second Committee of the 63rd session of the U.N. General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.
Mr Chairman,

My delegation is pleased to join this debate on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, and wishes to express at the very outset its appreciation for the effective approach to this particular item of the General Assembly.

It is often said that we have to defend the environment. The term “defense” could mislead us to see a conflict between the environment and the human being. In this forum, we speak of “protection” or “safeguarding”. Indeed, in this case, protection encompasses more than defense. It implies a positive vision of the human being, meaning that the person is considered not a nuisance or a threat to the environment, but as its steward. In this sense, not only is there no opposition between the human being and the environment, but there is an established and inseparable alliance, in which the environment essentially conditions the human being’s existence and development, while the latter perfects and ennobles the environment by his creative activity.

The use of appropriate language is important when we speak of protecting the environment and climate change, so vital for the whole of humanity today.

Ever since international law began to embrace global commons and shared ecosystems, new concepts have taken shape with a view to rethinking the legal basis of the appropriation, use, safeguard, protection and equitable sharing of natural resources as well as ecosystems. Notwithstanding some divergence of opinion regarding their meaning and normative status, the principles of “common heritage of mankind”, “state responsibility”, “common but differentiated responsibilities”, “inter-generational and intra-generational equity”, have provided valuable perspectives and guidance for addressing the interrelations of environment, economic development and ultimately human rights.

In the same vein, the principle of “responsibility to protect”, though it may not have been able to generate precise juridical norms in itself, has been invoked by some as an essential aspect of the exercise of sovereignty at the national and international levels.

Applying this principle to environmental issues and associating it with the protection of the global climate, actually gives the international community an opportunity to reflect on different aspects that can help promote an authentic human development.

The responsibility to protect the climate requires us to further deepen the interactions between food security and climate change, focusing on the centrality of the human person, in particular on the most vulnerable populations, often located in rural areas of developing countries. The strategies to confront the challenges of food security and climate change, through synergic actions of adaptation and mitigation, must take into account the centrality of these populations, respecting their culture and traditional customs.

Secondly, the responsibility to protect the climate should be based on the alliance between the principles of subsidiarity and global solidarity. In a world so interconnected as today, we are witnessing the rapid expansion of a series of challenges in many areas of human life, from food crisis to financial turmoil. Such crises have revealed the limited national resources and capacities to deal with them adequately, and the increasing need for collective action by the international community. The current negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are a good example of how responsibility to protect, subsidiarity and global solidarity are strongly intertwined with each other, a fact that we ought to take into account as we consider the protection of the global climate for present and future generations.

Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that the environmental question cannot be considered separately from other issues, like energy and economy, peace and justice, national interests and international solidarity. It is not difficult to perceive how issues of environmental protection, models of development, social equity and shared responsibility to care for the environment are inextricably linked.

Today’s society cannot respond adequately to the duty connected with the responsibility to protect the environment if it does not seriously review its lifestyle, its patterns of consumption and production. There is, therefore, an urgent need to educate in ecological responsibility, based on the fact that many ethical values, fundamental for developing a peaceful society, have a direct relationship to the environmental question. Conversely, the interdependence of the many challenges that the world faces today confirms the need for coordinated solutions based on a coherent moral vision of the world.

Such education cannot simply rest on political or ideological reasons, nor its purpose aim at the rejection of the modern world. It entails a genuine conversion and change in patterns of thinking and behavior and should be based on the value and dignity of the human person.

Thank you Mr Chairman.
 
Jean_1958 said:
NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2008 - Here is the message Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered today before the Second Committee of the 63rd session of the U.N. General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.
Click to expand...
As I said on a different thread where this message was posted, the opinion it expresses on global warming carries no moral weight. We are completely free to accept or reject it but this is precisely the kind of statement-inference that many within the Church make that I find offensive. What is implied is that, because someone with authority within the Church expresses an opinion on a prudential matter, it somehow imposes a moral obligation on Catholics to accept it. This implication is false and the people - bishops included - who make such declarations know it.

The obligation to apply prudential judgment to the solution of social problems lies with those specifically charged with that responsibility and in the realm of science that most assuredly is not a Vatican representative to the UN, or indeed the Pope himself. There is no moral ambiguity to the scientific question of the validity of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory is either correct or incorrect and that is a purely scientific question with no moral component whatsoever.

Ender
 
fish90 said:
Is disagreeing about Global Warming the same as disagreeing about the Iraq War?
Click to expand...
Well… if the total sum of BTU’s of heat energy contained within the Earth’s atmosphere now is higher than what was normal before the Industrial Revolution then that proves that there is such a thing as “Global Worming”, but nobody can ever prove it.

Temperature is not a factor because it is a variable. Total atmospheric BTU level is very much a constant although we have no real way to measure it.

👍
 
Regardless of the controversy (which personally I see as a straw man) over Global Warming, we have a moral obligation of stewardship of the planet. We know that petroleum is poison, at every stage of its extraction and usage. Our economy and standard of living is based on consuming poison. Yet, we now have the clean technologies to move away from that. More than that, the newer technologies are renewable, unlimited, and freely available in most populated parts of the planet.

There is no excuse for dragging our feet on this. It is possible for the oil companies to profit in the short term. Even if the decision were to shut them down, this would be in the public benefit, and a huge boost to the economies and standard of living for all people.
 
“Global Warming” is a very broad title.

Scientists have studied tree rings and tall columns of ice and conclude that our planet has had many cycles of warming and cooling of various lengths in various places on Earth.

The advance and retreat of glaciers have created wonderful tracts of land.

While we have measured annual rainfall for about 100 years in various locations, we also can see, in that 100 years, periods above and below average. I am not sure that anyone can honestly say major areas of the “globe” ARE in a period, longer than in the known past, with below average rain. As to temperatures - it does matter where the measurement is made. Change the location, change the reading.

So there is a NATURAL increase and decrease in “Warming” over long periods of time.

BUT, the industrial age has had its affect. AND we now have some 6 billion people, by far, the most ever. Yet, at the same time we have discovered great efficiencies in growing food and distributing it to far off places (albeit not everywhere needed) so that many more people today do live better because of the industrial age. The same with medicine, education, housing, clothing, etc.

Thus, there are pluses and minuses, but overall we - the developed and developing world - are better off than we were 200 years ago before the industrial revolution began.

Yet we are called to be good stewards of our resources. Conservation and recycling are relatively easy to do. Alternative “clean(er)” energy is much much harder. And it seems to be much much more expensive so it doesn’t look like a good thing for the poor who need it most.

Theory is one thing. Reality is another. Economics is a third. Objective, reliable data is a fourth and is often suspect.

So, in my view, there can be honest disagreement. We all need to learn more before we support too strongly one position or another.
 
I think that moral questions are relevant here, as they influence public policy.

I once worked for the largest wind turbine company in the world. According to the engineers I spoke with there, there is plenty of wind in the US to power all of our utilities, and it is cost competitive with oil. I have no idea if this is true, but that is the claim made.

Consider that we subsidize the airline industry through homeland security, the FAA, airports, government contracts to aircraft builders. We subsidize the automotive and oil industry through building and maintaining highways, the NTHSA, and our military. Even before the current wars, the US spent $7 in defense spending in the ME per barrel of oil exported from the ME. So while the price is low at the pump, it is actually about 20% higher in defense spending. I have no idea what the current wars over oil have done to that number, perhaps the actual cost now has tripled or quadrupled for us in money, and the cost of the blood and lives is even higher.

Without getting too political, the point I am trying to make is that, sure… we can disagree on the issue of global warming, but there is a larger moral issue which is simply good stewardship, which inheres regardless of global warming or not global warming.

When the actual cost of producing oil is calculated, then the alternatives are cheaper are at least competitive. When you add in the cost of the environmental damage, the the alternatives are a fraction of the cost of oil.
 
There are many different cyclical phenomena that impact the Earth and its climate. They range from the 11 year solar sun spot cycle to the cosmic ray cycle. We have no idea what causes any of them.

We do know that these cycles existed before man arrived and we know that man has no impact on them and we know that there is a correlation between them and the earth’s “temperature” and climate change.

There is a great deal about these and other natural phenomena that we just do not understand.

Making the whole issue much more complex is that we KNOW that some of the data is bad data … www.surfacestations.org has details.

And we also now have “climategate” in which we learned that there has been a long term deliberate effort by some scientists to fabricate data to make their point about man-made global warming. If global warming was so evident and so obvious and so real, then why would they need to deliberately engage in fraud to try to make their point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top