Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier, listen up.

I know you are an environmentalist. I also know you are not a tree hugger, or a “greenie”. Tree huggers and greenies are those who disparage capitalism and espouse some form of illogical, godless gaia worship. ‘Tree huggers’ is a perjorative term. So too is the euphemism “Greenie”. It is used against the hypocrits who supposedly love trees more than people and chain themselves to the trees to prevent logging, but then go home, switch on the electric lights, turn on their air conditioning and rest in the lap of capitalist luxury while they denigrate the capitalist process. Greenies are impractical environmentalists who would have us living in caves, lighting our way with candles and making us feel guilty even about the gases our candles emitt. They are all tared with the same brush, in that they resent our capitalist, western Judeo-Christian tradition and even blame it for our environmental woes. I for one know you are not like that. Tree huggers and greenies who spike trees are dangerous environmental vandals and show scant regard for human life or capital. They are dangerous hypocrites who play on people’s emotions and in the process peddle false ideas amidst a false ideology. The worst, the absolutely base of them all is a man called Al Gore, who literally frightened the world with his errant nonsense of doom and gloom, peddling a message that was full of errors, lies, gross distortions and base errors. yet all the while he lives in the lap of luxury, experiencing a lifestyle which most of us can but dream of. He is “green” in that he offsets his use of electricity by paying others to plant trees and by purchasing certificates which supposedly “allow” him to be a profligate user of energy. Hypocrisy writ large!!

Farmers are the true environmentalists. So too are gardeners and those who actively do things that help keep our environment healthy. Just like you have always done. You, therefore, do not fit the category of “greenies” and 'tree huggers" who rightfully earn our wrath and our contempt. Humans have been less than perfect in our stewardship of the natral environment. We all know that. Unfortunately, the rise and rise of large metropolises have removed much of the world’s population from the directly observable results of their lifestyle. City waste, sewerage, and much of the environmental degradation are ‘external’ to the consumption of city populations. Economists call them ‘externalities’ and until recently, there was no price on the cost of these aspects of consumption that were external to the consumer, except through some vague collecive levy for certain ‘services’. Still, today, the average consumer, city based, is detached from the environmental impacts of their lifestyles. That avergae city consumer doesn’t have much choice, because they are ‘locked in’ to a way of life. Some think wistfully and wishfully and long for a commune style of living, growing their own veggies. Once they have to bury their own sewerage they will understand just how convenient externalities can be!! Governments, however, are realising that the costs must be picked up and this is happening as environmental awareness increases. That is why there is a debate over the various energy sources that human societies might tap into. However, what we don’t need is an emotive, fear based campaign waged by so called “environmentalists” whose real agenda is a whole lot more than simply the environment itself.

thefreelibrary.com/WHO’S+GETTING+BURNED%3f-a0135437303

Grass farmers in Oregon accept government money, given to them to not burn their grass, then they burn it anyway. Those who live in Oregon are very aware of this problem. Are these farmers “true environmentalists” or are they people who are milking the government (paid for by our taxes) for what they can get, with little or no concern for the environment and/or the people who live and breathe the air near their farms?

What I am reading in this thread is absolute disgust for anyone who calls him/herself an environmentalist. Try to put yourself in my shoes, John. Can you understand how it feels to be ridiculed as I have been? To be told that I can’t understand the truth and being laughed at when I say I’m hurt by what is being said about me? Evidently my hurt feelings are fodder for more mocking of environmentalists. You may indeed be correct in what you state. But I don’t think you understand the pervasive attitude of paranoia and outright hatred toward environmentalists, as a whole. We are all called tree huggers, greenies, Greens. I am called that, yet you know I would never spike a tree or cause any sort of injury to anyone. You know me. You know that I respect your opinion and I appreciate your knowledge. We had a discussion about global warming way back when we first met. If you remember, what I told you was that I didn’t know for sure but that I believed it was not happening. We agreed. I had been educated on global warming by an engineer who worked for an oil company (I believe it’s the biggest one in the U.S.). I trusted his judgment and I accepted it.

He never called me a greenie, a tree hugger, a green. He never hurt me. He took the time to explain to me what I did not know with patience and charity. As you did. You know I’m not any sort of expert on global warming and you know that I am not able at the present time to involve myself in a comprehensive study of such.

I don’t think you see it but I’ve been an avid environmentalist for many, many years. I’ve been called these names for a long time. And they still hurt, especially when they come from people who share my faith in God through the Catholic Church. There is no excuse for name calling. There is no excuse for mocking me. And mocking me, personally, is going on in this thread. Please read some of the other posts.

 

[LittleSoldier]

High school physics and chemistry (at least when I was there) are perfectly adequate for understanding energy production.
If the ‘work’ you do is not pertinent to the discussion then I suppose we can rule out the possibility that you work in a field that provides you with expertise in these fields.

The high school physics and chemistry classes I took were taught by the same teacher. He did not know how to teach. And that is all I learned during those classes. I barely managed to pass them and the only reason I passed chemistry is because I cheated by using a previous student’s test answers when I was given the identical test (a sin for which I have atoned, confessed, and wish I had not committed).

So, no, they were not adequate in any way to prepare me for an understanding of energy production, although they might very well should have been.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Why don’t you go tell the parents of those children that needlessly were killed because of a company’s incompetence, greed, and sloppy maintenance that their sons’ deaths were a nightmarish scenario meant to scare gullible people? I’m sure they would appreciate knowing that their children’s lives were so meaningless and that their deaths are now being used to further advance an illogical agenda perpetrated by people who are too stupidly blind to understand anything except that they like the wind blowing on them, the sun on their faces, and are concerned for the “fishies.”

Also, instead of a why don’t we actually discuss what those videos and articles mean? If they are being used to frighten people they are evidently working. Simply dismissing them with a seems extremely inadequate to me.

What are you talking about?

 

[vz71]

What are you talking about?

That would be me.

My emoticon was read wrong.
I am not dismissing people and their plight.
I am rolling my eyes at the proximity of the multiple disaster stories after someone already pointed out the tendency for people to use scary stories rather then hard science to make a point.

 

[vz71]

Why don’t you go tell the parents of those children that needlessly were killed because of a company’s incompetence, greed, and sloppy maintenance that their sons’ deaths were a nightmarish scenario meant to scare gullible people? I’m sure they would appreciate knowing that their children’s lives were so meaningless and that their deaths are now being used to further advance an illogical agenda perpetrated by people who are too stupidly blind to understand anything except that they like the wind blowing on them, the sun on their faces, and are concerned for the “fishies.”

Also, instead of a why don’t we actually discuss what those videos and articles mean? If they are being used to frighten people they are evidently working. Simply dismissing them with a seems extremely inadequate to me.

The people involved in these tragedies have my prayers and sympathy.
But why should this alter my feelings of the environmentalist movement.
As I understand from your post, it was “a company’s incompetence, greed, and sloppy maintenance” that caused these tragedies.

And since the environment is not the cause of the tragedy, what purpose is the story other then to scare?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do the environmentalists in the forum realize that carbon dioxide is necessary for agriculture?

And that the present level of carbon dioxide, about 300 or 360 parts per million is less than ideal. That the ideal level is more like 1200 parts per million.

And that with reduced carbon dioxide and reduced temperature, the production of food GOES DOWN.

This is important to know.

If the government is successful is freezing or controlling or reducing carbon dioxide, it will hurt the environment! And hurt food production!!

What is with these people!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

The people involved in these tragedies have my prayers and sympathy.
But why should this alter my feelings of the environmentalist movement.
As I understand from your post, it was “a company’s incompetence, greed, and sloppy maintenance” that caused these tragedies.

And since the environment is not the cause of the tragedy, what purpose is the story other then to scare?

The purpose of the first video (IMHO as I did not produce it) is to give honor to the three boys who were killed and to show how much horror and grief can be caused by companies who do not maintain their equipment. These boys deserved honor. Their deaths were horrible and I hope very quick.

True, the environment is not the cause of the tragedy. The cause is the company’s poor operating procedures. But those poor operating procedures were the reason the boys were killed. And those poor operating procedures had a direct influence on the environment.

The environmental movement includes concern over companies who flaunt laws, who are concerned only with profit, who build pipelines with holes in them (that sometimes appear before the pipeline is operational), who damage the environment.

It’s like a lot of people think that the pro-life movement is only about abortion. But it’s not. A true pro-lifer is concerned with the right to life and the sanctity of that life from conception through death.

As an environmentalist, one of my biggest concerns is that companies that build nuclear power plants, pipelines for natural gas, or anything else that can cause damage to the environment, do so knowing their procedures are sloppy. They don’t care or they don’t care enough. The almighty dollar is far more important to them than safety of people or not causing damage to the environment. Another concern is about people who run lumber companies not caring about the environment but only for profit.

I don’t have a link for this (my apologies; I’ll try to find one but it may take me awhile), but in Oregon there has been a lot of clear cutting. Clear cutting causes erosion problems and now houses are sliding into rivers. Instead of agreeing to stop clear cutting, the lumber companies want to buy the houses that might slide into the rivers. These are not vacant houses. People live in them. These are their homes, yet the profit of the lumber companies is seen as more important than allowing people to stay in their own homes.

I admit I’m afraid of nuclear power plants. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged dangers of nuclear power. My concern is that the companies that build nuclear power plants are most likely building them just like other structures are built: in haste, with cheap parts from China, with shortcuts. I am also concerned that these structures are not properly maintained.

It all comes down to greed. The love of money may not be the root of all evil, but it’s the root of an awful lot of evil. The house I live in was thrown together quickly and over the years I’ve become aware of the shortcuts the construction company used, the parts that saved maybe a dollar at the most, and on and on and on. I am afraid that nuclear power plants are thrown together the same way.

That concern is part of the environmentalist movement.

BTW, thank you for indicating that it is the “environmental movement” you are referring to and not just tree huggers, greenies, greens, and enviros. That is what I suspected. I think that to many “environmental movement” equates to “tree huggers, greenies, greens, and enviros.” If I’m reading your post incorrectly I apologize and ask for clarification.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That would be me.

My emoticon was read wrong.
I am not dismissing people and their plight.
I am rolling my eyes at the proximity of the multiple disaster stories after someone already pointed out the tendency for people to use scary stories rather then hard science to make a point.

Which was not made clear at all in your post, as your entire post consisted of quotes from two posts and .

 

[vz71]

As an environmentalist, one of my biggest concerns is that companies that build nuclear power plants, pipelines for natural gas, or anything else that can cause damage to the environment, do so knowing their procedures are sloppy. They don’t care or they don’t care enough. The almighty dollar is far more important to them than safety of people or not causing damage to the environment. Another concern is about people who run lumber companies not caring about the environment but only for profit.

I believe you are correct. Many companies place profit over human concerns.
There should be legislation in place that would make it more economical to favor humanity. Obviously emmisions that are toxic to humans should be curtailed.
Likewise practices that place human life in danger.

But as soon as you start regulating how people treat the environment, you need to have a specific goal in mind.
Are you really trying to cut CO2 emissions? Why? And what exactly is the right level supposed to be? And how do we know this?

These questions need to have solid answers before we should put some kind of environmental regulation in place.
It is unfortunate that the envoronmentalist movement has had so many dishonest scientists working towards their end. People will distrust the movement as a result.
But dishonest people aside, I have yet to hear a clear answer as to what exactly these ideals are and how it is we know these values to be ideal.

Right now, it is bloody cold outside.
Colder then it has been in over a decade.
This hardly makes the case for global warming.

 

[vz71]

Which was not made clear at all in your post, as your entire post consisted of quotes from two posts and .

Apologies.
I believed the context said it all.

 

[vz71]

BTW, thank you for indicating that it is the “environmental movement” you are referring to and not just tree huggers, greenies, greens, and enviros. That is what I suspected. I think that to many “environmental movement” equates to “tree huggers, greenies, greens, and enviros.” If I’m reading your post incorrectly I apologize and ask for clarification.

No thanks needed.
Ad hominem never gets anyone anywhere.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I believe you are correct. Many companies place profit over human concerns.
There should be legislation in place that would make it more economical to favor humanity. Obviously emmisions that are toxic to humans should be curtailed.
Likewise practices that place human life in danger.

But as soon as you start regulating how people treat the environment, you need to have a specific goal in mind.
Are you really trying to cut CO2 emissions? Why? And what exactly is the right level supposed to be? And how do we know this?

These questions need to have solid answers before we should put some kind of environmental regulation in place.
It is unfortunate that the envoronmentalist movement has had so many dishonest scientists working towards their end. People will distrust the movement as a result.
But dishonest people aside, I have yet to hear a clear answer as to what exactly these ideals are and how it is we know these values to be ideal.

Right now, it is bloody cold outside.
Colder then it has been in over a decade.
This hardly makes the case for global warming.

Without profits, corporations would go out of business … their employees would all lose their jobs and their customers would no longer be able to buy their products.

 

[vz71]

Without profits, corporations would go out of business … their employees would all lose their jobs and their customers would no longer be able to buy their products.

True enough.
But surely there is a balance that can be found.

Profit works.
But if a business cannot produce profit without endangering people, perhaps they should not be in that business.
Or perhaps there should be laws in place requiring full disclosure of the dangers to the employees.

My views concerning laws I believe should be in place on business are likely off topic to the climate. I am concerned with human life and dangers to it, not necessarily the environment.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Without profits, corporations would go out of business … their employees would all lose their jobs and their customers would no longer be able to buy their products.

It’s not an either/or situation. Companies should be able to make profits without damaging the environment and/or creating dangers to people who work at that company or live in the areas which have equipment that the company produces and/or maintains.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I believe you are correct. Many companies place profit over human concerns.
There should be legislation in place that would make it more economical to favor humanity. Obviously emmisions that are toxic to humans should be curtailed.
Likewise practices that place human life in danger.

But as soon as you start regulating how people treat the environment, you need to have a specific goal in mind.
Are you really trying to cut CO2 emissions? Why? And what exactly is the right level supposed to be? And how do we know this?

These questions need to have solid answers before we should put some kind of environmental regulation in place.
It is unfortunate that the envoronmentalist movement has had so many dishonest scientists working towards their end. People will distrust the movement as a result.
But dishonest people aside, I have yet to hear a clear answer as to what exactly these ideals are and how it is we know these values to be ideal.

Right now, it is bloody cold outside.
Colder then it has been in over a decade.
This hardly makes the case for global warming.

Every cause has dishonest people. Every government has dishonest people. The Catholic Church has dishonest members. Every organization in the world with more than ten people probably has at least one dishonest member.

So what we do is somehow filter out the dishonest people and use the best data we have in order to come to a conclusion that is actually supported by the data. This involves a lot of research which is properly conducted, not just presenting “hypotheses” which haven’t been studied appropriately. Every study conducted on any environmental issue should be discussed, any confounding factors removed, researched again with these changes in place, and then put through the same process. Several times. The more times, the better. The repeating is necessary because any data found in a study can be due to simple chance. As far as I know there is no probability level of 0.00. What I’ve seen used mostly is a p of <.05 or <.01(this is in biological research). I also don’t think the U.S. government is careful enough with the studies their own scientists produce; at least not the studies I have seen (and I admit I have not seen many).

I don’t know if you are addressing me here, but I don’t believe that global warming exists or, if it does, I believe it is part of a natural cycle. I believe that human beings have done a horrible job of protecting the environment but I don’t accept that we are responsible for “global warming” if it even exists. And it bothers me that the U.S. government is spending so much money on such a ridiculous “pseudo-problem” instead of using that money to study and correct environmental problems that actually exist. I think the U.S. government is very good at using statistics to “prove” whatever it is they have already decided to “prove.” An example is the salmon. In Oregon there are two big industries: logging and fishing. Salmon are important to us, especially to those of us who live in towns which border the Pacific. Everyone here knows the number of salmon has decreased dramatically. That is a big problem. Yet the government seems to think that farmed salmon are exactly the same as wild salmon, even though if you put fillets from each next to each other they are obviously different and if you have the bad luck to taste farm-raised salmon you’ll probably notice they don’t taste very good, either.

 

[John21652]

Wait a second, I haven’t made any money on this serious issue yet!:crying:

Oh, don’t cry.

I am here to help.

For an outlay of a mere $1000.00 you can join the Global Warming Action League. I will send you a training video titled “How to make money out of Global Warming” and I will offer free telephone and email support. In no time at all I will have you selling bottled, CO2 free, cooled, sunshine. You will make a fortune and all the work is done from home. The lifestyle benefits you will achieve are something most people can only dream of. Once my company web site is fully operational you will be given access to a members section where you will learn the true and ancient secrets of bottling CO2 free sunshine. We supply the equipment for sucking the CO2 from the botled sunshine at cost, allowing you to provide a quality product to the consumer. This product is always in great demand in those earthly places where winter is most severe and CO2 free sunshine is at a premium. For an additional small outlay, we will build you an online store, giving your customers 24/7 access to your products. Additionally, you can purchase a Gold Membership, giving you access to the secrets of our premium product which is CO2 free, cooled sunshine. This premium product is particularly popular in the tropical ones. Additionally, our Gold membership entitles you to attend our annual business seminars which are always held in exotic and exclusive locations. At these conferences, you can learn the secrets of successful film making and book writing from those who have built a large following of CO2 free sunshine buyers around the world.

Should you be interested, feel free to contact me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Do the environmentalists in the forum realize that carbon dioxide is necessary for agriculture?

And that the present level of carbon dioxide, about 300 or 360 parts per million is less than ideal. That the ideal level is more like 1200 parts per million.

And that with reduced carbon dioxide and reduced temperature, the production of food GOES DOWN.

This is important to know.

If the government is successful is freezing or controlling or reducing carbon dioxide, it will hurt the environment! And hurt food production!!

What is with these people!!!

I don’t know how many environmentalists are members of CAF, so I’ll only speak for myself.

Actually the role CO2 plays is much more widespread than many people realize. It’s not just necessary for agriculture. CO2 is necessary for life. Every living plant or animal requires CO2 for respiration and metabolism (e.g. the Krebs cycle). But there can be a problem when CO2 accumulates in massive quantities. That’s one thing that can happen with an volcanic eruption.

“Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.”

volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

So CO2 can be dangerous. But how many people live so close to actively erupting volcanoes? I like the last sentence of what I quoted. A single step upslope may be all that is necessary to escape death.

People have a tendency to confuse CO2 with CO. They hear about CO poisoning and how it kills so easily (I have a photo which shows about ten people who were attending a party. There was an accumulation of CO and they all “went to sleep” and never woke up. It’s not a good idea to leave a car running, especially when it’s in a small garage connected to your apartment and you leave the door between the garage and the apartment open).

People scare easily. And they distrust the government with good reason. So they can become confused about global warming. Personally I don’t know one person who believes it even exists because it’s so easily refuted. Maybe it’s PC to grab onto global warming as a cause. I don’t know. I’m not a radical environmentalist; I’m an avid environmentalist. I stay away from radical groups. They tend to get all loopy and weird.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Every cause has dishonest people. Every government has dishonest people. The Catholic Church has dishonest members. Every organization in the world with more than ten people probably has at least one dishonest member.

So what we do is somehow filter out the dishonest people and use the best data we have in order to come to a conclusion that is actually supported by the data. This involves a lot of research which is properly conducted, not just presenting “hypotheses” which haven’t been studied appropriately. Every study conducted on any environmental issue should be discussed, any confounding factors removed, researched again with these changes in place, and then put through the same process. Several times. The more times, the better. The repeating is necessary because any data found in a study can be due to simple chance. As far as I know there is no probability level of 0.00. What I’ve seen used mostly is a p of <.05 or <.01(this is in biological research). I also don’t think the U.S. government is careful enough with the studies their own scientists produce; at least not the studies I have seen (and I admit I have not seen many).

I don’t know if you are addressing me here, but I don’t believe that global warming exists or, if it does, I believe it is part of a natural cycle. I believe that human beings have done a horrible job of protecting the environment but I don’t accept that we are responsible for “global warming” if it even exists. And it bothers me that the U.S. government is spending so much money on such a ridiculous “pseudo-problem” instead of using that money to study and correct environmental problems that actually exist. I think the U.S. government is very good at using statistics to “prove” whatever it is they have already decided to “prove.” An example is the salmon. In Oregon there are two big industries: logging and fishing. Salmon are important to us, especially to those of us who live in towns which border the Pacific. Everyone here knows the number of salmon has decreased dramatically. That is a big problem. Yet the government seems to think that farmed salmon are exactly the same as wild salmon, even though if you put fillets from each next to each other they are obviously different and if you have the bad luck to taste farm-raised salmon you’ll probably notice they don’t taste very good, either.

How did your logging industry make out with the Spotted Owls and all that?

How does your salmon fishing industry make out with the bears and sea lions eating your inventory?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Oh, don’t cry.

I am here to help.

For an outlay of a mere $1000.00 you can join the Global Warming Action League. I will send you a training video titled “How to make money out of Global Warming” and I will offer free telephone and email support. In no time at all I will have you selling bottled, CO2 free, cooled, sunshine. You will make a fortune and all the work is done from home. The lifestyle benefits you will achieve are something most people can only dream of. Once my company web site is fully operational you will be given access to a members section where you will learn the true and ancient secrets of bottling CO2 free sunshine. We supply the equipment for sucking the CO2 from the botled sunshine at cost, allowing you to provide a quality product to the consumer. This product is always in great demand in those earthly places where winter is most severe and CO2 free sunshine is at a premium. For an additional small outlay, we will build you an online store, giving your customers 24/7 access to your products. Additionally, you can purchase a Gold Membership, giving you access to the secrets of our premium product which is CO2 free, cooled sunshine. This premium product is particularly popular in the tropical ones. Additionally, our Gold membership entitles you to attend our annual business seminars which are always held in exotic and exclusive locations. At these conferences, you can learn the secrets of successful film making and book writing from those who have built a large following of CO2 free sunshine buyers around the world.

Should you be interested, feel free to contact me.

Lol, John. This is a bit embarrassing but I’m going to post it anyway. You know I’m moving (yeah, I know it’s taking a long time but I am going to do it). They sell Oregon rainwater in stores. It’s in little bottles and it passes all the government regulations as to how much of this and that it can have in it. I guess it’s purified rainwater.

I’m buying lots of bottles to take with me so that when I get homesick I can drink a bottle of good ol’ Oregon rainwater. (I’m also planning on stocking up on “Dare” brand fudge cookies which are the best packaged cookies in the world and are available here.)

Sad, eh?

 

[LittleSoldier]

How did your logging industry make out with the Spotted Owls and all that?

How does your salmon fishing industry make out with the bears and sea lions eating your inventory?

Do you really want me to answer these questions? Or are they rhetorical?