Catholicism and Climate Change

[markbrumbaugh]

I can’t believe that rationale Catholics buy into this stuff. Reducing CO2 under the assumption that it is causing global warming or for any reason whatsoever, will reduce energy that gives us our quality of life.

So we are to turn off our AC’s (yeah that won’t kill anybody), turn off our heaters in the winter (good for everyone huh?), everybody walks to work or rides a bicycle, eat raw food…wait…no food because there are no fertilizers or insecticides.

Come on…do you really think returning to the stone age will save lives?

You can’t replace the world’s demand for energy, currently supply by fossil fuel with expensive trinkets. Even batteries are going to need the energy from somewhere. Over the longer haul, we need to convert to another viable form of energy, sure, but not for CO2 emissions. “Mother Earth” will laugh at us by just burping another volcano.

 

[lynnvinc]

You would first have to prove that AGW, is more than a hypothesis. It doesn’t even qualify as a theory.

AGW has been a theory based on LAWS OF PHYSICS (unlike the cosmic ray and sun spot hypotheses of denialists) for over 100 years. ALL scientists in the field accept the greenhouse effect theory. Of course, dentists, with the “Dr” attached to their name might not know about it…even tho these are the types of people on those list of scientists disagreeing with AGW.

The first studies on evidence that AGW is happening to reach scientific certainty (.05 significance or 95% confidence) came out in 1995. If you’ve been keeping up with the science, and reading journals, such as SCIENCE, you should know that. The evidence has been building and strengthening even since, becoming ever more “robust” – which means there are many many indicators that AGW is upon us. This isn’t a matter of just one or two scientists, over even, say 100 scientist who (as denialists slanderously claim) have formed a conspiracy to foist false science on us. Its 1000s of scientists each in their own subspecialities finding evidence of AGW. For instance, biologists have found that growing seasons are starting weeks earlier, etc.

However, as Christians, we do not need 95% confidence we are harming and killing people to cease and desist. JPII and I back in 1990, before sci certainty started mitigating and suggesting others do likewise. Now the Vatican has solar panels, and is the 1st state to become carbon neutral. They lead by example. Too bad Catholics are so disconnected from the Holy Fathers and the Bible – which says, “Thou shalt not kill.”

More later…

 

[kimmielittle]

WHO estimates that 160,000 people per year are dying from vector and tropical disease spread caused by AGW.

No, vector and tropical disease are spread by Mosquitoes. It is interesting that it was the WHO who banned DDT…AND now Supports it’s use.

                                  WHO backs DDT for malaria control                 
         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39740000/jpg/_39740867_mos_bbc_203.jpg                 Malaria, carried by the mosquito, kills more than a million each year
         
                                         **The World Health Organization (WHO) has reversed a 30-year policy by endorsing the use of DDT for malaria control.**  The chemical is sprayed inside houses to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

DDT has been banned globally for every use except fighting disease because of its environmental impacts and fears for human health.
WHO says there is no health risk, and DDT should rank with bednets and drugs as a tool for combating malaria, which kills more than one million each year.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5350068.stm

Actually, it was the 30year ban by WHO of DDT for any increase in vector/ mosquito borne diseases.

The 2003 European heatwave killed 30,000 people. Half those deaths were said to be caused by AGW.

According to Mr Gores Claims.

Gore says, “A couple of years ago in Europe they had that heat wave that killed 35,000.” Though some scientists agree with Gore, the scientific consensus is that extreme warm anomalies more unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly; extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly; El Niño and volcanism appear to be of much greater importance than any general warming trend; and there is little evidence that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time. In general, warm is better than cold, which is why the largest number of life-forms are in the tropics and the least number are at the poles. A cold snap in the winter following the European heat wave killed 20,000 in the UK alone. Though the IPCC says 150,000 people a year are being killed worldwide by “global warming,” it reaches this figure only by deliberately excluding the number of people who are not being killed because there is less cold weather. In the US alone, it has been estimated that 174,000 fewer people are being killed each year because there are fewer episodes of extreme cold.

These are just part of the"errors’ found in a Court of Law
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

continued

 

[lynnvinc]

Yet, we are expected to funnel ** Trillions ** more taxes, yearly… based upon highly questionable hypotheses - To “solve” a problem prove any solutions offered does indeed, change climate ].
…Please show us how Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control … "Mitigates ’ climate.

You have the signs reversed – mitigating AGW SAVES us vast sums of money; it does not cost…at least down to 75% reduction in developed countries, esp the U.S. I’ve saved $2000 along just on my $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on soap-up switch. I did the bucket and stopwatch test, and it save 1/2 the hot water, without us even noticing any difference. That is $50 in water per year and $50 in energy to heat it. Over the past 20 yrs when I and JPII started mitigating – that’s $2000 just for that one measure, and we’ve done plenty more.

How does that help mitigate AGW – well, you see water needs energy to pump it, and hot water needs energy to heat it. That energy oftem comes from burning fossil fuels.

If one applies their mind and had even a tiny heart, one can come up with many many money-saving and no-cost solutions, without even lowering one’s living standards. Then some of that money saved could be plowed into other measures that help mitigate AGW.

And there are a plethora a solutions for businesses, churches, and schools that likewise save money while lowering GHG emissions, plus the other harms associated with fossil fuel burning.

THINK, LOVE, follow JESUS. I’ll work up a list and post it here of some things for starters.

 

[lynnvinc]

No, vector and tropical disease are spread by Mosquitoes.

Let me explain it a bit better. The warming causes such vectors to move into new territories, thus spreading their diseases to new areas. Is that a bit clearer?

 

[kimmielittle]

AGW is causing death and harm from its various knock-on effects. For instance, it increases the likelihood of more intense storms and hurricanes, floods (and it is those last few inches or feet that break the levees that are the most harmful), droughts in Africa and around the world, glacier and snowpack melt (causing more flooding now, but no water for agri much less drinking in the future –

Than you deny this chart?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

80 billion in India/China alone then), wildfires (as it dissicates soil and plant…warming causing more evaporation, combined with heavier winds), etc. YOU DO THE CALCULATIONS of how many people have died from these events over the past 30 years, then calculat a portion of these, which would be attributable to AGW, keeping in mind that it is the last fraction of intensity of these events (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, heatwaves) that does the most harm, and causes the most deaths – most like that fraction caused by AGW.

And do you deny That in the USA over 174,000 people alone, every year DON’T DIE because there is less fridged cold?

There are the harms from CO2 itself, acidification of the ocean harming sea life,

Nice try Accidification is caused by the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year [1998 ]. Two similarly severe El Ninos over the past 250 years also caused extensive bleaching. “Global warming” was nothing to do with it. It has not continiued.

and harming agriculture (with only a few more decades of CO2 and longer growing seasons in the rich northern latitudes showing some crop increasing, after which a sharp decrease is projected); and harm to crops elsewhere in the world (the poor countries) happening even now from the CO2 and heat.

Actually crops thrive with CO2 .That is why greenhouses increase the amounts of CO2. AS a fact: Well maintained forestest are thriving.

Enough CO2 and it can reduce rice yields by up to 40% by causing floret sterility…and that’s not even counting the negative impact of high temps. Right now the more quickly increasing night temps are harming rice crops; in the future both increasing day & night temps will be harming them.

Actually,no…It is flood irrigation that is harming rice…causing plant rot. Many third world farmers are no longer flood irrigating rice.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

When you throw in concomitant harms and death, the figure rises very steeply. Using a holistic approach, one must also figure in the other harms from doing the things that emit industrial GHGs, such as the burning of fossil fuels, their other non-GHG components, such as small particular matter – which kills 60,000 Americans alone each years (then extrapolate this out to rest of the world). Then there are the toxins that cause miscarriages (yes, WE are also in the abortion business), birth defects, death and disease. Acid rain (mainly from coal-burning plants and driving vehicles) – the SO2 & NOx under weather conditions turns into sulfuric acid and nitric acid, harming lakes, soil, trees, lung, and property.

You are blaming CO2, as do other believers of AGW, CO2 does not carry other GHG’s - they do not mix. As for Acid Rain - The acid-rain scare was debunked years ago. In 1980, Congress invested $500 million into a major scientific study called National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP). After ten years of careful research, the expert scientists involved in the study concluded that there is very little evidence that acid rain damages forests or crops. The NAPAP study also found that American lakes and streams were in much better shape than the EPA and other critics had asserted. The Great Lakes, for example, not only passed the acid rain tests with ease, Lakes Michigan and Superior register four times cleaner than they were in 1970.
Other prophets of environmental doom have found children’s textbook writers to be willing accomplices. Merrill Publishers’ World Geography: People and Places warns children about the “population crisis,” where world population is escalating geometrically and “500 million people suffer from malnutrition.” Overpopulation and hunger are important issues that require careful analysis, not scary statements. The statistics show that the world population growth rate began to decrease in the 1960s and that world population growth should be level by the year 2100. Annual food production-especially for wheat and rice-is outstripping world population growth.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

The harms and death in the future from AGW are ** projected to increase exponentially** as threshholds are reached.

HEREIN is the BIGGEST problem.

AGW’s count CO2 in LINEAR and EXPONENTIAL terms. The actions of CO2 are known to be logarithmic If one part of an equation is wrong …so is the results. This IS the Laws of Science, Math, Law AND Logic.

It will be a future of vicious, killer musical chairs as people fight over ever-dimishing life sustaining resources.

There is no proof that a slightly warmer temperature is bad for plant OR humanind. Please produce this evidence, as even AGW’s don’t claim this except those who relish in extremist hyperbole ].

This, as JPII, said in 1990 has to be done by everyone – it is everyone’s responsibity, even if the gov does nada about it.

this is what Holy Father said about exremist hyperbole

Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.
The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html

 

[kimmielittle]

AGW has been a theory based on LAWS OF PHYSICS

Actually, no - you see the LAWS of PHYSICS demand empirical evidence. AGW’ers fail to understand the differences between EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and hypothesis based upon subjective (name removed by moderator)ut into a model - which consistency records different results.

100 years. ALL scientists in the field accept the greenhouse effect theory.

Can you prove this statement?

Of course, dentists, with the “Dr” attached to their name might not know about it…even tho these are the types of people on those list of scientists disagreeing with AGW.

As opposed to the 52 people not all in sciences ] Who represent the IPCC “consensus” ???

How about the word of one of your Green Movement Leaders ?

A leading Leftist Green Movement ecologist says this about Global Warming and it’s hyperbole.

 Quote:
                                              The global warming scare machine is now so tenuous, that other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack and refuting the entire basis for man-made global warming concerns.

Denis G. Rancourt professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaign does a disservice to the environmental movement.
Rancourt wrote on February 27, 2007: “Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures.” (LINK)
Rancourt believes that global warming “will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around.” He also noted that even if C02 emissions were a grave threat “government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.”
Most significantly, however, Rancourt – a committed left-wing activist and scientist – believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a crisis.
Rancourt wrote: “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”
“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” Rancourt added.
Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers. “There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population,” he said, "As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it’s hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at] the poles and at the equator," he added.
epw.senate.gov/public/index.c…D-60AE6F3FEBE2

WE DO have scientific evidence that higher CO2 concentration promote plant growth - not destroy it.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

ALL scientists in the field accept the greenhouse effect theory.

Actually, the “Green House” theory is wrong. So, it would be a big mistake for a scientist to make…let alone accept.

Basic misconceptions that must be addressed include:

Does the Earth’s atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term “greenhouse effect” is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called “greenhouse gases.” An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth’s atmosphere is incorrect.
For a description of physical greenhouses see Sue Ann Bowling’s ASF piece here.
This does seem to cause some confusion so, to highlight the distinction between actual greenhouses and Earth’s inaccurately named greenhouse effect simply note that greenhouse temperatures are maintained by controlling the mixing air inside and outside the greenhouse (if it’s too warm in the greenhouse you open a top and bottom window and let convective action displace warmed air with cool) while Earth’s atmosphere is surrounded by the near-vacuum of space.
So, real greenhouses work mainly by modulating * convection* while the ‘greenhouse effect’ works by modulating radiation.
Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No, for the same reason that they don’t behave like an actual greenhouse, they simply do not behave as a barrier to convective activity and so aren’t “like a blanket.”
Forgetting about the unfortunate-but-commonly-used terminology for a moment, is the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ bad?

No, it’s necessary to maintain a habitable planet. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon’s mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (380 K, 225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (120 K, -243 °F). The Lunar surface temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon.

junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

[kimmielittle]

The first studies on evidence that AGW is happening to reach scientific certainty (.05 significance or 95% confidence) came out in 1995. If you’ve been keeping up with the science, and reading journals, such as SCIENCE, you should know that. The evidence has been building and strengthening even since, becoming ever more “robust” –

in addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. an american physical society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. an international team of scientists countered the un ipcc, declaring: “nature, not human activity, rules the climate”. international scientists demanded the un ipcc “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,”and a canvass of more than 51,000 canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” ajapan geoscience union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the ipcc report.”

The Head of NASA

“In late May, Michael Griffin, administrator of NASA, which conducts considerable amounts of climate research, told National Public Radio that he was not sure climate change was ‘a problem we must wrestle with” and that it was ‘rather arrogant’ to suggest that the climate we have now represents the best possible set of conditions.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

This isn’t a matter of just one or two scientists, over even, say 100 scientist who (as denialists slanderously claim)

I LOVE to debate with folks who use ad hominems

1000s of scientists each in their own subspecialities finding evidence of AGW. For instance, biologists have found that growing seasons are starting weeks earlier, etc.

Actually, they are saying the earth is getting warmer - as it has done before.

However, as Christians, we do not need 95% confidence we are harming and killing people to cease and desist. JPII and I back in 1990, before sci certainty started mitigating and suggesting others do likewise. Now the Vatican has solar panels, and is the 1st state to become carbon neutral. They lead by example. Too bad Catholics are so disconnected from the Holy Fathers and the Bible – which says, “Thou shalt not kill.”

It also says not to bear false witness - unless you can porove AGW has killed - that is what you are doing

Lets look at your leader

Day 1242

****OF ********FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT ****
****AL GORE’S ********REFUSAL TO TAKE THE ****

"PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE"

---

Gore asks viewers:
***“Are you ready to change the way you live?”

---

As a believer:
-that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
-that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
** **-that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
** **-that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
** **I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Pledge

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report – updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” – features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=D6D95751-802A-23AD-4496-7EC7E1641F2F

 

[kimmielittle]

The U.S. is still the world leader in emitting GHGs PER CAPITA

Actually no, China is

.

You chart is highly misleading.

The chart AND article stands UNLESS you can prove it wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

Let me explain it a bit better. The warming causes such vectors to move into new territories, thus spreading their diseases to new areas. Is that a bit clearer?

Actually, no.
Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15 degrees Celsius to breed. **The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle. **There is no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer. Have you ever broke through the snow - ice crust and not seen Mosquitoes swarms?

Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139. It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.

Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not. The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra.** West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate, however caused, does not affect its incidence or prevalence.**

Care to debate these ?

 

[kimmielittle]

You have the signs reversed – mitigating AGW SAVES us vast sums of money; it does not cost…at least down to 75% reduction in developed countries, esp the U.S. I’ve saved $2000 along just on my $6 low-flow showerhead with off-on soap-up switch. I did the bucket and stopwatch test, and it save 1/2 the hot water, without us even noticing any difference. That is $50 in water per year and $50 in energy to heat it. Over the past 20 yrs when I and JPII started mitigating – that’s $2000 just for that one measure, and we’ve done plenty more.

How does that help mitigate AGW – well, you see water needs energy to pump it, and hot water needs energy to heat it. That energy oftem comes from burning fossil fuels.

If one applies their mind and had even a tiny heart, one can come up with many many money-saving and no-cost solutions, without even lowering one’s living standards. Then some of that money saved could be plowed into other measures that help mitigate AGW.

And there are a plethora a solutions for businesses, churches, and schools that likewise save money while lowering GHG emissions, plus the other harms associated with fossil fuel burning.

THINK, LOVE, follow JESUS. I’ll work up a list and post it here of some things for starters.

Actually, you are using conservation / ecology stewardship. Since AGW is not a proven you haven’t changed the climate one bit.

I want to see where you have Changed the climate from Warming. AS AGW schemes pretend to do.

The Question was basically,…show how the “solutions” Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control have decreased OR COULD decrease the temperature 1 degree. Meaning to “Mitigate” AGW

I applaud your conservation stewardship - but that is entirely different than AGW.

 

[lynnvinc]

Than you deny this chart?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/goreerrors/15.gif

Who said fossil fuel burning only started only recently. The industrial revolution began in the late 1700s, and coal was burned even before that. The chart is very good evidence of the impact of CO2 on melting glaciers…better than I’d thought.

See the graph on pg 24 of this file re CO2 emissions since 1860, and you’ll see what I mean…it looks very similar to your graph: cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/ndp006.pdf

Now there are many other things that can impact glaciers – such as precipitation, black soot, local conditions, etc. Apparently the website you cited (Science and Public Policy) is hosted by persons who just make stuff up, and may pose as climate scientists, but are not climate scientist, and have been roundly debunked by real climate scientists. See for instance, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

It just occured to me that you may actually be one of those Sci & Policy guys. If so, I would implore you to please come straight and do the right thing by humanity. Renounce these bogus denialist claims. I’ll be praying for you, sir.

 

[lynnvinc]

Dear friends,

This is my first post on this website, thanks for your answers.

I’m a committed Catholic from Sydney, Australia, and last night I was having a good conversation with a friend who is an athiest-humanist.

He actually didn’t pit the question to me directly, but if he did, I wouldn’t actually have known what to say:

What is the Catholic Church’s position on climate change? Why aren’t more Christian leaders committed to climate change, when the science so clearly points out that it is real and the planet’s fate depends on the climate?

Jason, I’d like your friend to know that the Church leadership – the popes and most bishops – are very concerned about AGW, and have admonished Catholics to mitigate it since 1990.

“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone…The…‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions…” --Pope John Paul II, “Peace With All Creation,” 1990,

"If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation… Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010,

“We believe our response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation” --U.S. Bishops, 2001, “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops.

The Vatican has installed solar panels, and is striving to be the first carbon-neutral state.

Now the issue is, the popes and bishops have no earthly power or authority over Catholics who refuse to listen and follow their instructions. The Church is not like some business or government. Catholics will believe what they want, accept whatever science (bogus or real) they want, and follow their own inclinations. And there are powerful forces working against Church teachings and directives. For instance, in my parishes over the past 20 years there have been rich laity who have influence – some in the beef industry, some in the oil industry, some “Rush Limbaugh” Catholics, etc. – and these people make it hard for the priests to say anything about AGW, even tho the hierarchy has spoken about it and directed us to mitigate. Even some bishops and cardinals refuse to listen to the hierarchy, such as your Cardinal Pell. That is probably why your atheist friend was wondering what’s going on.

What’s going on is material and ideological interests blocking scientific evidence and findings, and our need to respond to these prudently.

So what good is the Church, your atheist friend will ask (as my non-Catholic sister did in another context of Catholics acting badly). It can only follow the “Jesus method” of untiring love and self giving, in hopes that will soften people’s hearts and lead them to Love and their heavenly home.

Last evening’s Divine Office readings struck me – “Christ ascended into heaven and prepared an everlasting place for his immaculate Mother, alleluia.” It got me thinking, if it weren’t for her and for the love the son Jesus had for his mother, there might not be any place in heaven provided for us terrible sinners. He loves her, and she loves and advocates for us, her spiritual children, and Jesus, of course loves us (the Bible tells me so), but also loves us through her.

It is our love in response to this divine love that can set us free to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and go follow Him, including mitigating AGW and refraining from sin and doing good in many other ways, and He will help us accomplish all this, as well. Love doesn’t force us, it works in a different way, “the Jesus method.”

 

[kimmielittle]

Who said fossil fuel burning only started only recently. The industrial revolution began in the late 1700s, and coal was burned even before that. ** The chart is very good evidence** of the impact of CO2 on melting glaciers…better than I’d thought.

So you accept this chart?

Then, you have just accepted, as evidence, what AGW’ers, like Mr. Mann, have hidden

See if you can figure it out - if not, I’ll help you. Hint: Look at the graph lines from 1700 to approximately 1825.

Now there are many other things that can impact glaciers – such as precipitation, black soot, local conditions, etc.

ABSOLUTELY

Apparently the website you cited (Science and Public Policy) is hosted by persons who just make stuff up, and may pose as climate scientists, but are not climate scientist,

Actually, no what I cited is the evidence used in a Court of Law - against Mr. Gores’ claims.

Apparently the website you cited (Science and Public Policy) is hosted by persons who just make stuff up,

Can you give evidence of this statement? Thou shalt not bear false witness, comes to mind - In fact, it comes to mind in almost every post you make. You seem to relish in throwing Ad Hominem as if throwing candy to little kids - Not a very good practice in debating an issue.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. 
   *]
   *]Person A makes claim X.
   *]Person B makes an attack on person A.
   *]Therefore A’s claim is false.

1. 
   

   The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

   nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.htmlThis tactic reduces your argument to NO argument.
   

   and have been roundly debunked by real climate scientists. See for instance, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

   An interesting Question has recently come up about the authors of RealClimate.
   
   Are NASA employees using TaxPayer time to blog and do personal research?
   
   Such as Mr. Hansen …Mr. Gavin Schmidt RealClimate ]…Reto Ruety?
   

    Quote:
                   In any event, the emails show that either Lights Out Upstairs was NASA work product (and not personal) or that NASA employees were diverted from NASA business to provide personal services for their boss. Something to keep in mind when contemplating the ongoing conundrum of how Gavin Schmidt operates RealClimate on his “personal time” – which elastically includes NASA working hours.

   **Postscript: ** On August 13, NASA headquarters sent an inquiry to NASA GISS about the Y2K controversy, then in its second wind. Even though the matter was 10 days old, there was no assessment at the NASA GISS website. Instead of publishing an assessment at the NASA website – the logical place, Hansen and Schmidt responded in off-balance sheet venues: Hansen at his “personal” website and Gavin, in accordance with his agreement with Ruedy, at RealClimate. So instead of being able to refer NASA headquarters to a clear and professional assessment at the NASA website, Hansen’s answer was:Send them Lights On Upstairs.
   
   climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/n…jim-checks-it/
   

   It just occured to me that you may actually be one of those Sci & Policy guys.

   
   
   I must admit, for all your proven misconceptions of AGW. I have thought, at times, that I was talking to Mr. Gore in a dress.

 

[kimmielittle]

Jason, I’d like your friend to know that the Church leadership – the popes and most bishops – are very concerned about AGW, and have admonished Catholics to mitigate it since 1990.
“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone…The…‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions…” --Pope John Paul II, “Peace With All Creation,” 1990,

"If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation… Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010,

“We believe our response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation” --U.S. Bishops, 2001, “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops.The Vatican has installed solar panels, and is striving to be the first carbon-neutral state.

Now the issue is, the popes and bishops have no earthly power or authority over Catholics who refuse to listen and follow their instructions. The Church is not like some business or government. Catholics will believe what they want, accept whatever science (bogus or real) they want, and follow their own inclinations. And there are powerful forces working against Church teachings and directives. For instance, in my parishes over the past 20 years there have been rich laity who have influence – some in the beef industry, some in the oil industry, some “Rush Limbaugh” Catholics, etc. – and these people make it hard for the priests to say anything about AGW, even tho the hierarchy has spoken about it and directed us to mitigate. Even some bishops and cardinals refuse to listen to the hierarchy, such as your Cardinal Pell. That is probably why your atheist friend was wondering what’s going on.

What’s going on is material and ideological interests blocking scientific evidence and findings, and our need to respond to these prudently.

So what good is the Church, your atheist friend will ask (as my non-Catholic sister did in another context of Catholics acting badly). It can only follow the “Jesus method” of untiring love and self giving, in hopes that will soften people’s hearts and lead them to Love and their heavenly home.

Last evening’s Divine Office readings struck me – “Christ ascended into heaven and prepared an everlasting place for his immaculate Mother, alleluia.” It got me thinking, if it weren’t for her and for the love the son Jesus had for his mother, there might not be any place in heaven provided for us terrible sinners. He loves her, and she loves and advocates for us, her spiritual children, and Jesus, of course loves us (the Bible tells me so), but also loves us through her.

It is our love in response to this divine love that can set us free to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and go follow Him, including mitigating AGW and refraining from sin and doing good in many other ways, and He will help us accomplish all this, as well. Love doesn’t force us, it works in a different way, “the Jesus method.”

Many times, I’ve asked you this. Can you show evidence of the Holy Father embracing AGW - Anthropomorphic Global Warming - Man Made Global Warming. AGAIN, I state The Holy Fathers were addressing Good stewardship - providing help in times of Natural disasters.

AGAIN I state, the belief in AGW HAS to deny ALL of God’s Nature, in order to work.
It denies ALL other Natural forces and places MAN ALONE, above God.

For the hypothesis of AGW to work…man ALONE becomes the Driver. Not a very Catholic prespective IMHO

Please don’t try to contort what the Holy Fathers have said to meet your agenda.

 

[lynnvinc]

Than you deny this chart?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/goreerrors/15.gif

Here’s the low down on that graph, which supposedly disproves AGW.

It was taken from Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by well-known AGW denialists in the business of sowing whatever seeds of doubt unsupsecting lay persons might grasp at – those who wish AGW were not happening & will llisten to any nefariously created argument against it.

Now those guys got their information from the draft article, “Deriving Global Temperature from Glacier Length Records,” at home.badc.rl.ac.uk/mjuckes/mitrie_files/docs/mitrie_glaciers.pdf. Note that on pg. 3 the author gives the results of his analysis – that using glacier length retreat as a proxy for warming, it shows a very good hockey stick…even better than M. Mann’s.

Just another line of evidence that proves AGW, and makes the evidence all that more robust.