Catholicism and Climate Change

[gardenswithkids]

…There are two entirely different and easily confusable movements that operate under the “green” banner. …

Green banners–doesn’t the Church use green banners to decorate during ordinary time? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

The environmental movement sometimes takes on almost a “religious ideology” of its own, but like anyone who seeks the truth, they share some beliefs with Catholic theology. Here are some things that Catholics believe in common with those who believe that humans cause climate change.

Humans are somehow set apart from the rest of nature. Even radical environmentalists agree with us that humans aren’t exactly just part of nature–otherwise everything humans did would be merely “natural”. As someone mentioned previously, Catholics believe we are stewarts of creation–which is not the terminology that many environmentalists use, but it is consistent with the general idea that we have an obligation take care of the planet.

Sin affects the world (in a bad way). We might differ in what we specific behaviors we call “sin”, but we agree that sin has a negative affect on the world.

Good behaviors save the world. What defines “good behavior” and what specifically we seek to save about the world may differ. In our Catholic terminology, we call good behavior “sanctity” or “holiness”. We specifically look to Jesus Christ to save the world, but we believe that we have a part to play also.

We want to avoid a very hot environment for our long term future. We don’t want that for anyone! In one of our common Catholic prayers we pray, “Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”

 

[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?

There is no problem at all at the top of the Catholic Church, they are into warning the faithful about anthropogenic climate change, and have been since JPII’s statment in 1990. And many more Vatican statements have been made since either directly specifying our responsibility to mitigate climate change, or indirectly by mentioning our need to mitigate all the serious environmental problems that threaten life and health on earth on into the future.

Furthermore, the Vatican is installing solar panels and buying offsets, and may become the first carbon-neutral state.

The U.S. and other bishops have also made great statements re our need to mitigate AGW – see here. There are also many other bishops around the world who have spoken well about our need to mitigate. However, I’m afraid to say that your Cardinal Pell is not one of them – he is a denialist, much like the commenters here – so I can see why your atheist friend was hedging around about that.

I also have atheist friends, and I think most are pretty much humanists, in that they are moral and concerned about doing good. In fact, I sort of figure that because they do not have the skirt of religion to hide their dirty deeds behind (like so many in so many religions), they sometimes seem better than us religious folk. That Jesus has given us forgiveness of sins, I’m thinking, may lead to even greater laxity among the “faithful”; in religions where God is keeping an unerasable ledger on all we do, the people (at least in the path) seemed to have followed a stricter moral path than us. (I say “seem” bec that’s just some lay observations, and not very scientific).

Our religion uses a different tact – God first loved us, and is overly merciful in forgiving our sins, letting even the worst of us off the hook if we simply turn to Him and say sorry. He is such a gracious and lovable God, that we can’t (if we’re normal and not abused or with some disorder) help but love God back, and that is the impetus to our being good and moral. Who would want to displease the Most (Infinitely) Significant Other in their lives?

And I’m sort of hoping that when Catholics can attain that spiritual freedom and really, truly feel they are God’s precious children – so loved by God even unto death and beyond – that they will overcome their fears regarding accepting AGW science, and will out of love for our Dear Friend and Savior, who longs to walk hand-in-hand with us and help us in any way we need (even in finding mitigation solutions), will out of this return love for Him mitigate climate change. That is my hope and prayer. I’ve worked up a “Little Way of Environmental Healing,” which is basically doing everything we can, no matter how small, to reduced our environmental harms, and our love will make it infinite, as Mother Teresa used to say.

It seems on the surface the Christian method doesn’t work well, but I have total faith in God’s method of love. It’s all we have. To whom shall we turn?

 

[kimmielittle]

There is no problem at all at the top of the Catholic Church, they are into warning the faithful about anthropogenic climate change, and have been since JPII’s statment in 1990. And many more Vatican statements have been made since either directly specifying our responsibility to mitigate climate change, or indirectly by mentioning our need to mitigate all the serious environmental problems that threaten life and health on earth on into the future.

You have been asked many times before to produce the Holy Fathers words stating He endorses AGW - Anthropogenic climate change. Since you seem not to produce his words,but contiue to make these claims…IMHO it seems like contortion of his words to fit your driven agenda.

The U.S. and other bishops have also made great statements re our need to mitigate AGW – see here

They are not embracing the schemes of AGW. They are concerned with providing Natural Disaster Relief…Good Stewardship…

. There are also many other bishops around the world who have spoken well about our need to mitigate. However, I’m afraid to say that your Cardinal Pell is not one of them – he is a denialist, much like the commenters here – so I can see why your atheist friend was hedging around about that.

These statements, by you, are very disturbing why would a Catholic associate other Catholics with Holocaust deniers?

I also have atheist friends, and I think most are pretty much humanists, in that they are moral and concerned about doing good. In fact, I sort of figure that because they do not have the skirt of religion to hide their dirty deeds behind (like so many in so many religions), they sometimes seem better than us religious folk. That Jesus has given us forgiveness of sins, I’m thinking, may lead to even greater laxity among the “faithful”; in religions where God is keeping an unerasable ledger on all we do, the people (at least in the path) seemed to have followed a stricter moral path than us. (I say “seem” bec that’s just some lay observations, and not very scientific).

ABSOLUTELY, it is you subjective speculation. BUT the question is why do you attempt to associate Catholics to Atheists?

You have tried this association many times before…it truly is saddening.

 

[timotheos]

Ahimsa:

The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to “respect creation” while “focusing on the needs of sustainable development”.

The Pope’s message follows a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that “disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa”.

Observers said yesterday that the Catholic church is no longer split between those who advocate development and those who say the environment is the priority. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, head of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, said: “For environment … read Creation. The mastery of man over Creation must not be despotic or senseless. Man must cultivate and safeguard God’s Creation.”

There is a huge difference between good Catholic stewardship of the earth out of respect for God’s creation, and making a brand new religion out of climate change fears, with green living as its only real doctrine. The latter is sort of paganistic, if you ask me.

 

[kimmielittle]

There is a huge difference between good Catholic stewardship of the earth out of respect for God’s creation, and making a brand new religion out of climate change fears, with green living as its only real doctrine. The latter is sort of paganistic, if you ask me.

Absolutely

 

[lynnvinc]

You have been asked many times before to produce the Holy Fathers words stating He endorses AGW - Anthropogenic climate change. Since you seem not to produce his words,but contiue to make these claims…IMHO it seems like contortion of his words to fit your driven agenda.

They are not embracing the schemes of AGW. They are concerned with providing Natural Disaster Relief…Good Stewardship…

Over the past 25 years or so when people refer to the greenhouse effect or global warming they are referring to “anthropogenic climate change.” That is the default meaning. You have to look at the context. When JPII in 1990 names serious environmental problems, including the “greenhouse effect,” and says it is everyone’s responsibility, he does not mean it is everyone’s responsiblity to sit around and do nothing, but to mitigate these. I it up to you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they mean some natural disasters and not man-made problems.

Why, bec as laypersons we need to act with prudence and avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address real problems we are causing, not only to reduce our harm to others, but to our immortal souls, as well. It is the scientists job to be skeptical and strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims – they must protect their reputations. So there will be skeptics in any scientific field, who are working to disprove what is accepted. It is not our job to run around finding all these loopholes that will get us off the hook of our responsibilities, esp when the harms are so great (and will be vastly escalate in the future), and the solutions in our hands (and, praise be to God, save us money and help the economy, and help solve many other problems).

These statements, by you, are very disturbing why would a Catholic associate other Catholics with Holocaust deniers?[/QOUTE]

By using the term “denialist,” I’m playing the Cain card, not the Nazi card.

However, there is a great poem that does just that – “The Most Fortunate Generations.”

the question is why do you attempt to associate Catholics to Atheists? You have tried this association many times before…it truly is saddening.

I’m not doing that. In fact I’m drawing distinctions – between the good atheists I know, who seem to be moralistic, and the religious who hide behind the skirts of religion to justify their wrong doings.

There are also some very bad atheists, such as the militant atheists who are into desecrating the Eucharist and those egging them on. I’ve been fighting them with all my ability and efforts.

There is this other distinction. We Christians (and those of many other religions) know we will go to hell if we willy nilly kill people and go around denying it. So it seems to me that Christians who have come to grips with AGW are the most passionately into mitigating and getting others to do so. The atheists, OTOH, seem scattered and weak on this issue – some accept AGW and simply give it lip service, since major harms are in the future, after they’re gone, so it’s no skin off their nose; and others deny it (they don’t believe they have hell to pay, supposing they are wrong). They are in no way afraid of the false negative on this.

 

[edwest2]

To the OP:

First, the problem was called air pollution. The air was contaminated from various sources. This is still going on. Just this week, China passed the United States in energy consumption. They also have smoke belching factories.

Sustainable growth is a term that sounds complicated but is really quite simple: You have X amount of resources, and some are replenishable, like crops and cattle, but as your population goes up, the rate of consumption goes up. Eventually, like China, you adopt a one child policy because you believe that unrestrained reproduction means you won’t be able to feed everyone.

In the West, in the so-called developed countries, birth rates are down. In Third World countries, birth rates are up.

The problem with “climate change” is that the solution can easily be exploited and trillions of dollars are at stake. Weather patterns are still poorly understood. Numerous fixes have been proposed but scientists are unsure about the final results.

Orbiting satellites that unfurl kilometers wide sun shields to lower the temperature over certain parts of the earth. Good idea? They don’t know. Temperature differences produce rain, but the interaction of the various atmospheric layers and the jet stream are, again, poorly understood. It is thought that a shutdown might occur in part of the system. One can’t drag the earth into the lab to test this or that.

To connect Catholicism to climate change is not really meaningful. Who will develop the final policies and make the final decisions? Governments of wealthy countries based on the word of qualified scientists. All people, Catholic and non-Catholic, can do is follow the (hopefully) informed decisions of our leaders and wait for the results to come in.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ender]

I’m drawing distinctions – between the good atheists I know, who seem to be moralistic, and the religious who hide behind the skirts of religion to justify their wrong doings.

You’re doing a good deal more than this. Your “distinction” is based on several assumptions: that the theory of AGW has been proven true, that it is so obviously true that there is no reasonable ground to reject it, that everyone knows this, thus the only reasons for opposing it are immoral. I reject all of these assumptions - not to mention your conclusion. AGW has not been proven, there are any number of reasons for rejecting it, and most people don’t know much about the theory in any case. Your distinctions are .

So it seems to me that Christians who have come to grips with AGW are the most passionately into mitigating and getting others to do so.

What is the Christian position on AGW? What is the Christian position on the Big Bang theory? What is the Christian position on how the pyramids were built? What is the Christian position on Keynesian economics? The answer to all these questions is the same: there isn’t one because these aren’t moral questions.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

A RE-POST

		 			 			 		  		 		 			 			The problem that many seem to disregard:

The “Green Movement” works without conscious or regard.
No one is out of it’s sights. It targets indiscriminately. Including falsehoods sold to school kids, as truth.

As a fact… it champions kids to become a tool for their “movement”. I don’t think there is one Catholic that would allow, knowingly, Planned Parenthood to teach in school, that Population Control for convenience, as a moral answer to ecological problems. Yet, that is exactly what parents allow, because that is one of the solutions embraced by the IPCC AR4 reports. And IPCC reports are used as evidential fact in school Including all of the scandalous reports ].

They have in IMHO, Corrupted their movement past the most corrupt of any governments we can point to. A corrupt government can be overthrown. There is at least, a head to attack with corrupted governments.

How so:?

Corrupt governments oppress people, the “Green Movement” doesn’t - you say.

Answer: Can you point to a"solution" of the “Green Movement” that doesn’t oppress? The schemes used are to shift both power and money - without being held accountable. Exactly, what a corrupted government tries to do…I.E.,…Mrs Marco’s Shoes…etc

Corrupt governments kill innocent populations to solve internal problems, the "Green Movement doesn’t - you say.

Answer: Well Population Control through Abortion…Eugenics…Rationing of Health Care…Assisted Suicide…kill innocent populations to solve problems…AND unlike a corrupt government - will go unaccountable, because it will become acceptable.

We all need to really look at who the backers of these schemes are Please don’t try to say evil Exxon …because I have Shell oil and many others, backing “Green Movements” ]. I’m talking of International Planned Parenthood…Margret Sanger International…UN Population Control.

We need to understand “Love Canal” and Governments role. Government allowed Love Canal, if one checks history. It wasn’t EPA or any other governmental agency that brought Love Canal down - It was freedom of press. Not the Main Stream Press until the final death blows were issued ] - But people who reported the lies / cover-ups and inconsistencies OF the Government.

It was the internet blogs who exposed the Governments role in disenfranchising Katrina Survivors from their properties – In order for a “New Order” of Real Estate Moguls to purchase with Federal aid ], the survivors lands etc, As the Government shipped survivors to other states.

It is the internet who is exposing the mis-truths - associations - schemes issued by IPCC. Why wasn’t it the governments that exposed these scandals? Does that not say something to how deeply corrupt the “Green Movement” is? IT , Lack of governmental oversight, lack of Main Stream Media coverage, until they couldn’t ignore it anymore, alone… should cause us all the highest level of concern.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

To me sustainable development is a question of how we exploit resources and how we build and grow. For example, continuing to live 50 miles from work, and driving an SUV to work every day is not sustainable in the long term.

On the flip side, “sustainable growth” does give me the chills.

–
Bill

What is the matter with growth? You prefer decline?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

To the OP:

. All people, Catholic and non-Catholic, can do is follow the (hopefully) informed decisions of our leaders and wait for the results to come in.

God bless,
Ed

We can also use our God given brains and figure out whether any of this makes any sense.

 

[Tigg]

A RE-POST
The problem that many seem to disregard:
The “Green Movement” works without conscious or regard.
No one is out of it’s sights. It targets indiscriminately. Including falsehoods sold to school kids, as truth.

As a fact… it champions kids to become a tool for their “movement”. I don’t think there is one Catholic that would allow, knowingly, Planned Parenthood to teach in school, that Population Control for convenience, as a moral answer to ecological problems. Yet, that is exactly what parents allow, because that is one of the solutions embraced by the IPCC AR4 reports. And IPCC reports are used as evidential fact in school Including all of the scandalous reports ].

They have in IMHO, Corrupted their movement past the most corrupt of any governments we can point to. A corrupt government can be overthrown. There is at least, a head to attack with corrupted governments.

How so:?

Corrupt governments oppress people, the “Green Movement” doesn’t - you say.

Answer: Can you point to a"solution" of the “Green Movement” that doesn’t oppress? The schemes used are to shift both power and money - without being held accountable. Exactly, what a corrupted government tries to do…I.E.,…Mrs Marco’s Shoes…etc

Corrupt governments kill innocent populations to solve internal problems, the "Green Movement doesn’t - you say.

Answer: Well Population Control through Abortion…Eugenics…Rationing of Health Care…Assisted Suicide…kill innocent populations to solve problems…AND unlike a corrupt government - will go unaccountable, because it will become acceptable.

We all need to really look at who the backers of these schemes are Please don’t try to say evil Exxon …because I have Shell oil and many others, backing “Green Movements” ]. I’m talking of International Planned Parenthood…Margret Sanger International…UN Population Control.

We need to understand “Love Canal” and Governments role. Government allowed Love Canal, if one checks history. It wasn’t EPA or any other governmental agency that brought Love Canal down - It was freedom of press. Not the Main Stream Press until the final death blows were issued ] - But people who reported the lies / cover-ups and inconsistencies OF the Government.

It was the internet blogs who exposed the Governments role in disenfranchising Katrina Survivors from their properties – In order for a “New Order” of Real Estate Moguls to purchase with Federal aid ], the survivors lands etc, As the Government shipped survivors to other states.

It is the internet who is exposing the mis-truths - associations - schemes issued by IPCC. Why wasn’t it the governments that exposed these scandals? Does that not say something to how deeply corrupt the “Green Movement” is? IT , Lack of governmental oversight, lack of Main Stream Media coverage, until they couldn’t ignore it anymore, alone… should cause us all the highest level of concern.

Wow, Kimmie! Spot on! :clapping: :tiphat:

 

[kimmielittle]

Wow, Kimmie! Spot on! :clapping: :tiphat:

Thank you

 

[lynnvinc]

The “Green Movement” works without conscious or regard.

But even if the Green Movement is evil and its motives evil, that still does not give us to right to kill people through environmental harms, such as AGW.

It’s sort of like saying that Radical Feminists are evil, ergo, women should not get equal pay for equal work, and should be discriminated against.

Or, the Black Panthers are evil, ego we should discriminate against blacks.

There will alway be people on the extremes of any good social movement. I certainly do not approve of Earth Liberation Front (ELF) tactics, but those who deny AGW and work hard to dissuade others from mitigating are also in the wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

But even if the Green Movement is evil and its motives evil, that still does not give us to right to kill people through environmental harms, such as AGW.

Can you support that even one person has been killed by AGW?

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

Why? It is a hypothesis based upon subjective ] (name removed by moderator)ut into a modeler, that shows inconsistencies constantly.

After ** trillions of dollars ** spent…** decades of hypothesis ** - we still see no cause-effect links

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 ].

The solutions offered are less than hypotheses - they fall under / below even speculation - As there is not even a model present for this speculation.

It’s sort of like saying that Radical Feminists are evil, ergo, women should not get equal pay for equal work, and should be discriminated against.

No,it’s not, at all. Women, have a viable case FOR EQUAL PAY, not a hypothesis.

but those who deny AGW and work hard to dissuade others from mitigating are also in the wrong.

Please show us how Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control … "Mitigates ’ climate.

 

[kimmielittle]

Just how bad is the USA…for not ratifying Kyoto?

What does this say about IPCC - Kyoto - Cap and Trade - Carbon Credit - Population Control Schemes / Claims? None were used.

ALL other Countries have Ratified Kyoto - Have Cap and Trade etc…AND missed their levels

 Quote:
                                             **                                 US Leads World in Greenhouse Gas Reduction                              **

                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                   by [Wendell Cox](http://www.newgeography.com/users/wendell-cox) 07/20/2010

For years, the United States has been portrayed by both international and domestic interests as an environmental outlaw, because of its high rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The United States, Canada and Australia have the highest GHG emissions per capita in the world. Further, the United States has historically had the highest overall GHG emissions, until having recently been passed by China.
It is likely to come as a surprise that the US has become a model for its reduction in GHG emissions over the last decade. According to a report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, GHG emissions per capita fell more in the United States from 2000 to 2009 than in any other area reviewed. The Agency also reported that there had been no growth in global GHG emissions in 2009.

newgeography.com/content/…-gas-reduction

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

GRANTED much has to do with recession - BUT IT IS A WORLD WIDE RECESSION.

However, US emissions per unit of GDP declined significantly for years before the recession..

 

[Ender]

But even if the Green Movement is evil and its motives evil, that still does not give us to right to kill people through environmental harms, such as AGW.

Throughout all these discussions, no matter what arguments “deniers” make about the science involved, it appears that true believers just can’t accept that there are people out there who actually think the theory of AGW is wrong. They keep coming back to the idea that we really know better but just don’t care, as if it were somehow as inconceivable to reject AGW as to reject gravity. This is why the entire question of whether there is a Catholic perspective on this issue is so ludicrous. It is a purely scientific debate (or should be); there is no moral question involved whatever.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Can you support that even one person has been killed by AGW?

Only a few calculations have been done on only a couple of the myriad of harms exascerbated by AGW, so these are extremely low calculations. WHO estimates that 160,000 people per year are dying from vector and tropical disease spread caused by AGW. The 2003 European heatwave killed 30,000 people. Half those deaths were said to be caused by AGW.

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 – 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.

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

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.

There are the harms in producing coal and oil – the cancer alleys (towns with high rates of cancer in oil processing regions), the mountaintop removal for coal, and the harms done to people living in those regions, the oil spills, the TVA coal ash spill (the worst environmental disaster in US history a couple of years ago…causing health harms).

The harms and death in the future from AGW are projected to increase exponentially as threshholds are reached. It will be a future of vicious, killer musical chairs as people fight over ever-dimishing life sustaining resources. Over the next few centuries billions could die from AGW; over the next few millennia life on earth could even be wiped out – see p. 24 of this.

Unless…unless…people like you get on with mitigating AGW. Please don’t wait for the gov and its ill-conceived plans and regs. 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.

More in next…

 

[lynnvinc]

Just how bad is the USA…for not ratifying Kyoto?

The U.S. is still the world leader in emitting GHGs PER CAPITA – and that is what we as Catholics have to look at, our own individual responsibilities in this. You chart is highly misleading. You would deny some villager in India who currently don’t have electricity, a chance to get electricity so they could have one 40 watt tube light so their kids can study at night and hope to go to college? Plus a table fan to keep the mosquitos off when they sleep? That’s about the typical electrical usage of an Indian villager. Can’t we allow our hair to dry naturally, and stop using blow-driers instead (except in emergencies). Can’t we turn OFF a few lights not in use…

 

[kimmielittle]

I ask again, CAN you…Will you work my reverse equation? This will show you “Impact” results.

I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],

Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

A number that is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignoreall other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

Now…Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…UNLESS, someone was making a killing…AND using AGW trying to scare us ??

You are welcome to test my math