Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

  • Thread starter Thread starter kimmielittle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Coral Reef - why is it disappearing?

When flying to southern California, one can see a thick blanket of smog which hovers over a large area of several counties. Why is it there? Our children breathe this poison. It’s not getting better; it’s getting worse.
Read “CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs” by Dr. Craid D. Idso

Excellent discussion of how coral reefs form, recede, and come back and the various mechanisms.

Available from:

valeslake.com/bookmart.htm

www.valeslake.com

Smog in California is the result of the topography … natural bowls or basins in the earth and mountains that capture the air and prevent natural dispersion of smog.

Denver, Colorado; Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City have similar natural bowls.

Other cities can and do have smog, but it tends to not last very long. In Los Angeles, it is pretty much permanent owing to the topography.
 
Originally Posted by LittleSoldier
Sometimes I think the earth would be better off if every single human being were wiped off the face of the planet. Every one of us.

See my post above. Unfortunately, you have proven me a soothsayer.

Please, friend, stop reading so muchof this stuff, and understand full well that what you have been reading is really, at its core, propoganda. People with an agenda are putting out alarming stuff which all of it every bit is being proven wrong as we speak. Yet they keep doing it, despite the debunking of the “science” involved. Why? It’s not the planet, it’s not the air, the fish, the polar bears, dolphins, or the redwoods these people are concerned about; rather, it is about power. It is about moving the free and prosperous nations of the world away from individual-oriented, free-market democracies in which people reap the rewards of what we create and earn, into centralized economies in which we get what we are given by the very people telling you that you should be frightened about AGW. For your own good, start reading some dissenting opinions. A billion burning cigarette butts piled atop a huge pit of bubbling tar surrounded by a billion cows flatulating is not going to destroy the planet, nor is smog or an oil spill (Ever hear any more about that BP thing? Hmmm…) or me driving my truck which gets 15 miles to the gallon. For one to make the statement that “Sometimes I think the earth would be better off if every single human being were wiped off the face of the planet. Every one of us” truly is a tragic sign of the times. Godspeed.
I’m surprised my comment has received the attention it has. I don’t really mean it. It’s something I stated out of frustration. I obviously didn’t make that clear. I apologize for my failure to communicate adequately.

No matter how educated one is in environmental issues there is no way one can be expert on all aspects. I do have some education in environmental issues and I understand that if one person drops a burning cigarette butt on a patch of dry grass there is a good possibility that the grass will catch on fire and the fire may burn out of control. This isn’t all bad because some seeds need fire to germinate. But it also can burn down trees that could have provided dens and such for animals. When those animals don’t have places to be safe, they can be more easily killed off by predators, which leads to a decrease in the animals which have now become prey. Once the prey have been reduced drastically the predators (which have multiplied in greater numbers because of the abundance of prey) either need to find a new food source or they will starve. And on and on it goes.

Everything is inter-connected. I’ve read dissenting opinions. At this time I am more confused. I honestly do not know if global warming exists. So I have to read more and study more and I will.

I appreciate your charity. I’m not trying to cause problems or fight with people.

BTW, in your scenario I think that with all that cow flatulence an explosion heard across several states would be one result. I did like reading that part of your post especially. I got a picture in my mind. Horrifying, but funny, too. Thank you. 🙂
 
Read “CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs” by Dr. Craid D. Idso

Excellent discussion of how coral reefs form, recede, and come back and the various mechanisms.

Available from:

valeslake.com/bookmart.htm

www.valeslake.com

Smog in California is the result of the topography … natural bowls or basins in the earth and mountains that capture the air and prevent natural dispersion of smog.

Denver, Colorado; Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City have similar natural bowls.

Other cities can and do have smog, but it tends to not last very long. In Los Angeles, it is pretty much permanent owing to the topography.
I’m aware of that; however I don’t think the smog should be there in the first place.
 
The studies about Yucca Mountain have been ongoing for
Whether it is Alan Alda or Al Gore, they continuously use the most alarming stories, which we have finally just started calling “Polar Bear Stories”. And Polar Bear Stories are all that they have to work with.
Who is “we?”
 
I’m aware of that; however I don’t think the smog should be there in the first place.
It’s part of life.

You can wish that it wasn’t there.

But then you would have to eliminate people and their freedom and mobility.

If we didn’t have cars, then what?

[Electric “non-polluting” cars don’t work really well … and you still need to generate the electricity to charge the batteries. And most of that comes from coal. No nice way.]

Well, there was a time when we actually DIDN’T have cars.

And it was a much worse, bigger mess.

Horses were a disaster. But better than walking and pushing hand carts.

Having cars is far far better than the alternatives.
 
Originally Posted by LittleSoldier
Sometimes I think the earth would be better off if every single human being were wiped off the face of the planet. Every one of us.

See my post above. Unfortunately, you have proven me a soothsayer.

Please, friend, stop reading so muchof this stuff, and understand full well that what you have been reading is really, at its core, propoganda. People with an agenda are putting out alarming stuff which all of it every bit is being proven wrong as we speak. Yet they keep doing it, despite the debunking of the “science” involved. Why? It’s not the planet, it’s not the air, the fish, the polar bears, dolphins, or the redwoods these people are concerned about; rather, it is about power. It is about moving the free and prosperous nations of the world away from individual-oriented, free-market democracies in which people reap the rewards of what we create and earn, into centralized economies in which we get what we are given by the very people telling you that you should be frightened about AGW. For your own good, start reading some dissenting opinions. A billion burning cigarette butts piled atop a huge pit of bubbling tar surrounded by a billion cows flatulating is not going to destroy the planet, nor is smog or an oil spill (Ever hear any more about that BP thing? Hmmm…) or me driving my truck which gets 15 miles to the gallon. For one to make the statement that “Sometimes I think the earth would be better off if every single human being were wiped off the face of the planet. Every one of us” truly is a tragic sign of the times. Godspeed.
When someone says that things would be better if every human was wiped out, then they are speaking contrary to Jesus’ message.

If cigarette butts are a problem, then the complainers should get a garbage bag and pick them up. Call it a personal penance. Make the world a better place by starting with ones-self.

ONE volcano does more damage in one eruption than all the cigarette butts from all of humanity.

Folks can look up the damage done by Mount St. Helens. The equivalent of 40,000 atomic bombs going off. They can look it up.

When some of the volcanoes in the Philippines or Indonesia erupted, the damage to the whole planet was HUGE.

They can look it up.
 
I think if everyone spent two years in the Peace Corps there would be much understanding of the environment and also it would help treat this sickness called “materialism”.
Peace Corps is good.

You learn about things like tuberculosis.

And how people in Africa can’t use irrigation for their crops because government thugs will steal their stuff.

And how people line up in the middle of the night in front of the American Embassy so they can be first in line to get a visa to come to the United States.
 
When someone says that things would be better if every human was wiped out, then they are speaking contrary to Jesus’ message.

If cigarette butts are a problem, then the complainers should get a garbage bag and pick them up. Call it a personal penance. Make the world a better place by starting with ones-self.

ONE volcano does more damage in one eruption than all the cigarette butts from all of humanity.

Folks can look up the damage done by Mount St. Helens. The equivalent of 40,000 atomic bombs going off. They can look it up.

When some of the volcanoes in the Philippines or Indonesia erupted, the damage to the whole planet was HUGE.

They can look it up.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, have you ever heard of hyperbole?
 
When someone says that things would be better if every human was wiped out, then they are speaking contrary to Jesus’ message.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, haven’t you ever heard of hyperbole? I have already responded to this. I’m not going to do it again.
If cigarette butts are a problem, then the complainers should get a garbage bag and pick them up. Call it a personal penance. Make the world a better place by starting with ones-self.
Perhaps you are not aware that cigarette butts are dropped all over the place and that not all people have the physical capability to pick them up. Are we supposed to drag a trash can all over the place and pick them up? Carry garbage bags with us when we take a walk? I can’t bend over easily and I can’t take one of those things that pick up objects because I am using a cane to help me walk (which uses one hand) and the other hand is holding onto the leash of my dog (my service dog).

People should not be dropping them in the first place!! Perhaps they should be trying to make this world a better place by not dropping their soggy saliva-soaked butts anywhere they feel like it.
ONE volcano does more damage in one eruption than all the cigarette butts from all of humanity.
What is your point? Does this excuse littering which may result in forest fires? What does littering cigarette butts have to do with volcanoes? You’re comparing apples and oranges.

Are we all supposed to drag hoses all over the place or numerous containers of water to put the fires out and hope that we catch them in time before they turn into a massive fire such as the Biscuit Fire? Should we all have numerous fire extinguishers in our cars? And carry them with us when we take our dogs for a walk?

A volcano is part of nature over which we have little or no control. Dropping cigarette butts is not part of nature and we certainly have control over it.

Littering cigarette butts is illegal. And for a good reason. It’s dangerous, it’s rude, it’s uncharitable, and it shows disrespect for private and non-private property. It should not be done. This is not some immoral law that Catholics can claim they don’t have to follow. Someone dropping a cigarette butt on dry grass caused a massive forest fire near my sister’s house. They didn’t have to evacuate but they were on evacuation alert and had their precious belongings in the car, ready to go. All because someone didn’t care.

It’s wrong. People should stop doing it and if they don’t they should be fined. I, for one, am getting very sick and tired of people doing this. And I’m also tired of people throwing trash and garbage out of their cars as they drive along.
 
It’s part of life.
It shouldn’t be.
You can wish that it wasn’t there.
But then you would have to eliminate people and their freedom and mobility.
No, not necessarily. Research is being done to study how to end this problem.
If we didn’t have cars, then what?
Um, walking and biking, using commuter trains, and conducting research to learn how to end this problem.
Electric “non-polluting” cars don’t work really well … and you still need to generate the electricity to charge the batteries. And most of that comes from coal. No nice way.
And that’s why research is being conducted to learn how to end this problem.
Well, there was a time when we actually DIDN’T have cars.
Yes, I know. It was before cars were invented.
And it was a much worse, bigger mess.
Horses were a disaster. But better than walking and pushing hand carts.
Having cars is far far better than the alternatives.
No - hopefully an alternative will be discovered by research to learn how to end this problem, instead of ignoring it and going on with our lives as if it doesn’t matter at all. Children breathe in smog. It makes them ill. It makes all of us ill. Something has to be done.

And that is why there is research to learn how to end this problem.

Will you please answer the question I asked of you in post #136? Thank you.
 
It shouldn’t be.
No, not necessarily. Research is being done to study how to end this problem.
Um, walking and biking, using commuter trains, and conducting research to learn how to end this problem.
And that’s why research is being conducted to learn how to end this problem.
Yes, I know. It was before cars were invented.

No - hopefully an alternative will be discovered by research to learn how to end this problem, instead of ignoring it and going on with our lives as if it doesn’t matter at all. Children breathe in smog. It makes them ill. It makes all of us ill. Something has to be done.

And that is why there is research to learn how to end this problem.

Will you please answer the question I asked of you in post #136? Thank you.
You may be joking around, or THINK you are joking around, but a lot of people take this sort of thinking seriously … and a lot of them are policy wonks working in our government and drafting up new rules and regulations.

I know it’s tough being limited in one way or another.

But exaggeration doesn’t actually help anything.

Our policy makers take this stuff literally and … are in the process of wiping out electric generation, for example, or pushing electric cars that nobody wants and are ineffectual.

You may not be serious, but other people read your posts and they DO take this kind of thinking seriously.
 
Horses were a disaster. But better than walking and pushing hand carts.

Having cars is far far better than the alternatives.
Horses were not a disaster. Just a more limited means of transportation. People forget that equine waste was reused as fertilizer.

Cars may move you faster and carry more weight but that doesn’t mean horses were a nightmare. If cars disappeared tomorrow horses would step into the job with barely a hiccup. Sadly people have forgotten just how efficient horses can be.

Very Small Equine Driver 😉
 
You may be joking around, or THINK you are joking around, but a lot of people take this sort of thinking seriously … and a lot of them are policy wonks working in our government and drafting up new rules and regulations.

I know it’s tough being limited in one way or another.

But exaggeration doesn’t actually help anything.

Our policy makers take this stuff literally and … are in the process of wiping out electric generation, for example, or pushing electric cars that nobody wants and are ineffectual.

You may not be serious, but other people read your posts and they DO take this kind of thinking seriously.
I am not joking one bit. Not at all. And I am allowed to use hyperbole. How you could ever think I am joking is beyond my comprehension. Environmentalism is a big part of my life. I don’t joke about it and nothing in my post would have been construed as a joke by most people. Are you denying that research is being conducted with the aim of reducing pollution? Is that supposed to be a joke? What did you think was a joke? I’m honestly confused. I absolutely do not understand.

Also, I did not say “it’s tough being limited in one way or another.” We are all limited in one way or another.

Also, I very much doubt that anyone will take my statement about wiping people off the face of the earth so seriously that he/she goes out and attempts to wipe people off the face of the earth. Silly, silly, silly. So silly.

I am allowed to state my opinion, which I did. If you don’t like it that is not my problem, although I would hope that you would understand what I meant. Obviously you don’t. I clarified my statement both in the post I made it in and in other posts. And when I read numerous articles on pollution I do wonder what it would be like if human beings had not done such a horrendous job of caring for this planet. God wiped almost every human being off the face of the earth once. He had a good reason for doing so.

Do I really wish that all human beings were wiped off the face of the planet again? No. But I still wonder what it would be like if that had happened and if it might have resulted in a healthier planet, though sans human beings who are created by God and are precious to Him.

I’ve now clarified my statement again. I hope you understand why I said what I did.
 
[ihaveamouseinmypocket]
You may be joking around, or THINK you are joking around, but a lot of people take this sort of thinking seriously … and a lot of them are policy wonks working in our government and drafting up new rules and regulations.

Our policy makers take this stuff literally and … are in the process of wiping out electric generation, for example, or pushing electric cars that nobody wants and are ineffectual.

You may not be serious, but other people read your posts and they DO take this kind of thinking seriously.
 
Edit to above post:

I should have put quotation marks around my response and given credit to the person who actually stated what I quoted - Monte RCMS.

I apologize for the oversight.
 
Horses were not a disaster. Just a more limited means of transportation. People forget that equine waste was reused as fertilizer.

Cars may move you faster and carry more weight but that doesn’t mean horses were a nightmare. If cars disappeared tomorrow horses would step into the job with barely a hiccup. Sadly people have forgotten just how efficient horses can be.

Very Small Equine Driver 😉
From another equine handler/rider/driver, I’d have to say that even though horses were vitally important down through the ages, they also produced a lot of problems. Did you know Julius Ceaser banned horse drawn vehicles in ancient Rome from dawn till dusk in an attempt to curb accidents, congestion, noise and of course, that end product called horse sht! In London in 1894, town planners, as reported in the London Times, feared that by 1950 London’s streets would be nine feet deep in horse sht. In 1880 New York and Brooklyn had something like 160,000 horses that produced around 40,000 gallons of horse urine and maybe three million pounds of horse sh*t a day !!
Now in England in the 1880s it was reckoned that it took five acres to feed a horse. That’s a lot of land diverted from feeding people. Of course, yields were less because the farm work was done by horses, which covered less land a day than do modern tractors. Now consider how world’s people numbers have grown since the hors numbers peaked around 1915. How many horses would we need today? Imagine the waste problem! And the congestion! Imagine replacing every truck that carries goods with horse drawn wagons!!

Something which goes through my mind constantly is just how clogged todays legal system would be once the problems of horse ownsership and its attendant liabilities took over our societies!! People getting kicked, horses bolting, making a mess and causing the EPA to be in fits of apoplexy. And…oh boy, wouldn’t the traffic cops have nervous breakdowns. “No officer, I didn’t run the red light. Me 'orse is colour blind!”. I fear ‘tis too late to even dream of returning to those days of horse drawn conveniences. Unless, of course, we went all the way back to relying on Shanks’ Ponies!! 😃

Some how, the motor car seems a Godsend. 🤷
 
From another equine handler/rider/driver, I’d have to say that even though horses were vitally important down through the ages, they also produced a lot of problems. Did you know Julius Ceaser banned horse drawn vehicles in ancient Rome from dawn till dusk in an attempt to curb accidents, congestion, noise and of course, that end product called horse sht! In London in 1894, town planners, as reported in the London Times, feared that by 1950 London’s streets would be nine feet deep in horse sht. In 1880 New York and Brooklyn had something like 160,000 horses that produced around 40,000 gallons of horse urine and maybe three million pounds of horse sh*t a day !!
Now in England in the 1880s it was reckoned that it took five acres to feed a horse. That’s a lot of land diverted from feeding people. Of course, yields were less because the farm work was done by horses, which covered less land a day than do modern tractors. Now consider how world’s people numbers have grown since the hors numbers peaked around 1915. How many horses would we need today? Imagine the waste problem! And the congestion! Imagine replacing every truck that carries goods with horse drawn wagons!!
If the automobile had not been invented (and of course it would have been and was) the entire transportation/economic/population situation of most of the world would be different from the way it is today. There’s really no way to say what would have happened because the automobile *was *invented and the invention took off and now some people have three or four cars. Maybe we would live as the Amish do, which would not necessarily be a bad way to live (I’ve always been impressed by the Amish although I think their dislike of anything modern is taken a bit too far). I would bet that there would not be as large a population as there is now. There is no way horses could be used with all the people alive today; in fact, I think the automobile is one (and maybe even the major) reason why there are so many people today. You’re right - how could horse-drawn carts replace semis hauling three trailers?

My Mom told me that cars were hailed as an end to the pollution problem when they were first becoming popular (the pollution problem being the end product of living horses, which needed to be cleaned up and caused a huge mess, not to mention a rather foul smell). My Mom is my source for this and I can ask her about it but I don’t think she’ll answer as she no longer lives on this earth. But I believe that what she said is true. There are stables north of my town and horses are rented and taken down to the beach in groups. They have to cross Highway 101. It amazes me to see the “road apples” (I think that’s what they’re called) all over the road. It must take about three minutes at the most for the group of horses to traverse the road but those road apples are there in abundance. Do horses defecate all the time? Sheesh, it seems so!!
Something which goes through my mind constantly is just how clogged todays legal system would be once the problems of horse ownsership and its attendant liabilities took over our societies!! People getting kicked, horses bolting, making a mess and causing the EPA to be in fits of apoplexy. And…oh boy, wouldn’t the traffic cops have nervous breakdowns. “No officer, I didn’t run the red light. Me 'orse is colour blind!”. I fear ‘tis too late to even dream of returning to those days of horse drawn conveniences. Unless, of course, we went all the way back to relying on Shanks’ Ponies!! 😃
Some how, the motor car seems a Godsend. 🤷
I agree that it can seem that way, especially when one looks at the fact that a car can be stopped in one’s garage or driveway, the ignition turned off, and that’s it. You don’t need to have a minimum of one acre (or five as you have stated). It’s not necessary to feed a car on one’s property, although I suppose feeding stations for horses could have been put in place (but it would take much longer to feed a horse than to fill a car with gas). Can you imagine a “feed station” with a group of horses with feedbags on?

I used to know someone who lived on a very large ranch in Australia. He used a light plane to get around. I don’t know if he also had horses, but I wonder if people who have such large plots of land do use horses as transportation. There are areas in Oregon where cars cannot go; not even those with four-wheel drive. Law enforcement uses horses to get around. I know law enforcement uses horses in New York city, among other cities, because they can go places that cars just can’t go.

So - I guess my points are that we don’t know what would have happened if the automobile had not been invented, horses still have their uses (and they’re awfully nice animals; I’ve heard they are loyal and loving), and traffic congestion is horrendous in some places. This is weird, John, but I have a picture in my mind of a very crowded 91 freeway (it was horrible when I lived near it and had to use that freeway to commute to work and now I’ve heard from several people that it’s even worse, which I don’t think is possible unless people are now being forced to drive in reverse (sometimes the traffic was so bad that those of us who lived in the area literally could not get to work)…oops, sorry, going off on a tangent. It’s still early here and I’ve been up for hours)…anyway, I have this weird picture of you riding a horse on that freeway and bypassing all the cars that are either stopped or going backwards and you laughing as you just move between the cars…maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to have a horse as backup for the times when using a car just isn’t feasible.

I wonder why I have that picture in my mind…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top