Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

lynnvinc;6973568:

As a physicist, and judging from what you write in your posts, I probably know a great deal more than you about the greenhouse effect, so I’m writing this not to teach you, but to help explain to others who aren’t scientists why your arguments are not correct. The greenhouse effect is due to absorption of energy by molecules which can re-radiate that energy through a low frequency vibration in the infra-red (heat region). CO2 is one such molecule because it has a low-frequency bending vibration. H2O is another, which also has a low frequency bending vibration. The atmosphere of Venus contains almost all CO2 (I’m not sure of the exact percentage) while the atmosphere of earth contains only a small percent (approximately, less than one percent.) and a much larger fraction of H2O vapor. Thus, for earth, water vapor is approximately 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, given H2O’s greater concentration in the atmosphere. Should we ban emission of H2O vapor? The fact that temperature falls less on a cloudy night than on a cloudless is testament to the layperson that H2O is indeed an effective greenhouse gas. And arguments about feedback, more CO2 causing more H2O vapor, are scientific nonsense, as a first year physics relative humidity calculation would show. CH4 (methane) also has low frequency bending vibrations, and molecule for molecule, is 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 CH4 is contained in human and animal flatus and eructations (burps). Should we (as was attempted in New Zealand) pass a penalty tax on such emissions of CH4?

I challenge you to read some of the writings of Lindzen, Ball, Singer, Seitz and point out, on your own, without parroting from “green blogs”, the scientific errors.

 

[kimmielittle]

As a physicist, and judging from what you write in your posts, I probably know a great deal more than you about the greenhouse effect, so I’m writing this not to teach you, but to help explain to others who aren’t scientists why your arguments are not correct. The greenhouse effect is due to absorption of energy by molecules which can re-radiate that energy through a low frequency vibration in the infra-red (heat region). CO2 is one such molecule because it has a low-frequency bending vibration. H2O is another, which also has a low frequency bending vibration. The atmosphere of Venus contains almost all CO2 (I’m not sure of the exact percentage) while the atmosphere of earth contains only a small percent (approximately, less than one percent.) and a much larger fraction of H2O vapor. Thus, for earth, water vapor is approximately 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, given H2O’s greater concentration in the atmosphere. Should we ban emission of H2O vapor? The fact that temperature falls less on a cloudy night than on a cloudless is testament to the layperson that H2O is indeed an effective greenhouse gas. And arguments about feedback, more CO2 causing more H2O vapor, are scientific nonsense, as a first year physics relative humidity calculation would show. CH4 (methane) also has low frequency bending vibrations, and molecule for molecule, is 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 CH4 is contained in human and animal flatus and eructations (burps). Should we (as was attempted in New Zealand) pass a penalty tax on such emissions of CH4?

I challenge you to read some of the writings of Lindzen, Ball, Singer, Seitz and point out, on your own, without parroting from “green blogs”, the scientific errors.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Ahhhh…The two evil companies tactic

Actually Exxon hasn’t funded any group in quite awhile…BUT in case you missed my post British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Sultanate of Oman,…Ohhh just count em…just with CRU

Just by shear numbers, …this tactic is thrown out.

You need a new song to sing, especially to me. The one you are singing is off pitch.

Gee Kimmie…they left out my two favorites…GE and DuPont. Two companies I used to respect and now consider opportunistic prostitutes.

 

[zdon011]

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?

Dear Jason,

It’s funny that many atheists/secularists want religion ‘out of the public sphere’, but get upset that religions don’t ‘speak up’ on their own pet issues, like ‘climate change’. They can’t have it both ways. The Church is not obliged (or able) to ‘take a stand’ on everything, especially matters not directly related to faith or morals. Individual Christians have freedom of conscience on such issues.

Your friend’s dedication to the single issue of ‘Climate change’ bears all the hallmarks of what he would call ‘fanaticism’ if he were religious and the issue was one of doctrine. Ask him why anyone who doesn’t see the issue the same way he does should be damned as ignorant/uncaring/backward.

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?

Your friend invokes ‘science’ the way pious Muslims invoke the Koran, as a source of unanswerable authority. ‘Science’ doesn’t point out anything, only the interpretations of scientists based on empirical evidence. Many reputable scientists are ‘Climate sceptics’, including most geologists, who look at the broad trends in earth’s climate history.

I suspect that for many liberal Christians (and my church is pretty much controlled by such folk) ‘Climate change’ has become almost a distraction from the Gospel and the problem of human depravity. Instead of focusing on what God can do in our lives, we worry about what OUR solutions, OUR technology, OUR sacrifices can do to ‘save the world’. Christ said ‘what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’

Bless you,
zdon

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Dear Jason,

It’s funny that many atheists/secularists want religion ‘out of the public sphere’, but get upset that religions don’t ‘speak up’ on their own pet issues, like ‘climate change’. They can’t have it both ways. The Church is not obliged (or able) to ‘take a stand’ on everything, especially matters not directly related to faith or morals. Individual Christians have freedom of conscience on such issues.

Your friend’s dedication to the single issue of ‘Climate change’ bears all the hallmarks of what he would call ‘fanaticism’ if he were religious and the issue was one of doctrine. Ask him why anyone who doesn’t see the issue the same way he does should be damned as ignorant/uncaring/backward.

Your friend invokes ‘science’ the way pious Muslims invoke the Koran, as a source of unanswerable authority. ‘Science’ doesn’t point out anything, only the interpretations of scientists based on empirical evidence. Many reputable scientists are ‘Climate sceptics’, including most geologists, who look at the broad trends in earth’s climate history.

I suspect that for many liberal Christians (and my church is pretty much controlled by such folk) ‘Climate change’ has become almost a distraction from the Gospel and the problem of human depravity. Instead of focusing on what God can do in our lives, we worry about what OUR solutions, OUR technology, OUR sacrifices can do to ‘save the world’. Christ said ‘what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’

Bless you,
zdon

Last paragraph is a very thought provoking statement.

It is quite conceited to think we should “save the world from humanity” as if we even could. Not to say we shouldn’t be good stewards of all the tremendous resources God has given us, but to stop using them in worship of a pagan Gaia???

Please send this on to the Vatican before they do any more damage to themselves in this area. Screwtape is at work again.

 

[Tigg]

It is quite conceited to think we should “save the world from humanity” as if we even could. Not to say we shouldn’t be good stewards of all the tremendous resources God has given us, but to stop using them in worship of a pagan Gaia???

Please send this on to the Vatican before they do any more damage to themselves in this area. Screwtape is at work again.

 

[Bobby_Joe_1]

As a matter of fact, the atmosphere contains 0.038% CO2 by volume (that’s right, thirty-eight one thousanth of a percent), and up to 5% H2O by volume. Which has the greater effect? A rhetorical question!

I have seen this comparison made:
If the atmosphere were a 100 story tall building, the amount of CO2 produced by human activity would be the thickness of the linoleum on the first floor.

 

[portarica]

Since it has, at its core, the death of innocents, or the prevention of God’s will through contraception, it is just the latest tactic of the evil one. This is not condemnation of those in the movement, only evidence of the impetus for the movement.

You are right, the changing climate kills many innocents and is the tactic of those that divorce themselves from Jesus’ tenant to treat the least like they may be Him.

To ignore man’s impact on the environment is to ignore Jesus’ call to be aware of how our actions impact our neighbors. It is sort of ironic that the fundamentalist protestants who most ardently ignore the impact of pollution upon our environment are OK with the way that ignorance impacts those Jesus said to love.

That is why the Vatican asks us to be stewards of what God has created. It is the same as putting our talents to good use. We have a moral and religious obligation to put the natural gifts of the planet God has given us to their best use.

Peace

 

[Bobby_Joe_1]

As a matter of fact, CO2 is 0.038% (that’s right, thirty-eight one thousanth of a percent) by volume of the atmosphere. H2O isranges from 1 to 5% by volume. Rhetorical question; which has more effect on global warming?
I have seen this comparison made:
If the atmosphere were a 100 story tall building, the amount of man-made CO2 would be equivalent to the thickness of the linoleum on the first floor.

 

[lynnvinc]

I must add that whatever be the scientific facts about climate change, the Catholic Church has always promoted an ascetic way of life. In secular terminology, we call it the change in lifestyle. Isn’t this the advice of all environmentalists? Look at the saints of the Church. They have invariably lead a simple way of life. We should know that it is this simplicity that will solve all environmental problems, whether it is climate change or other global changes. St. Francis of Assisi remains as an example to the entire world.

You are so right, Dr. Jose. In fact I think it was bec I’d just become a OCDS Carmelite (lay order) that made it easier for me to take on the AGW as my own responsibility back in 1990. Perhaps even for JPII (he was also OCDS).

St. John of the Cross says that to achieve union with God, one must become detached from all things “not God” – all worldly goods, pleasures, self-glories and ego-satisfactions, even spiritual goods, e.g. seeking and delighting in apparitions and spiritual consolations, etc. (No wonder people don’t put up statues of him ).

As the Bible says, it is more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven, than for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle (I know, that is the name of a very narrow, low gate into Jerusalem). Considering how poor the rich were back then by today’s standards, I’d say it’s more difficult for an average American to enter into heaven than for an elephant to go thru the eye of a needle.

And I think that explains in large part why so many Americans and other rich people in the world today cannot accept the science of AGW, and are so busy grasping at rotting straws to disprove it, and would be willing to risk losing heaven than risk even a few pennies of their rich way of life, or their self-justifications and self-glories.

 

[portarica]

As a matter of fact, CO2 is 0.038% (that’s right, thirty-eight one thousanth of a percent) by volume of the atmosphere. H2O isranges from 1 to 5% by volume. Rhetorical question; which has more effect on global warming?
I have seen this comparison made:
If the atmosphere were a 100 story tall building, the amount of man-made CO2 would be equivalent to the thickness of the linoleum on the first floor.

How is it both .038 percent and 1 to 5 percent?

A 100 story building is about 1000 feet tall. (empire state building 102 stories 1250 ft tall).

Using your numbers the linoleum layer would be between 4.5 inches and 200 ft in depth.

Which is it? And how thick is the linoleum or tile or wood floor or carpet in your house?

Pollution hurts people , but greed trumps stopping pollution. Why are you on the side of greed and pollution?

Peace

 

[kimmielittle]

Would you say this is a Truth? An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs??

BUMPING THIS, it seems to have been missed by the person I asked it of

Originally Posted by lynnvinc forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Actually, as a Christian, I’m embarrassed and ashamed so many of my Christian brethren believe AGW and evolution are hoaxes. God is truth, and denying scientific “truths” or findings is bad, provisional & changeable and based on the best theories & evidence to date tho they be.

Would you say this is a Truth? **An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs**?? __________________

 

[kimmielittle]

Pollution hurts people , but greed trumps stopping pollution.

Peace

ABSOLUTELY!!!

How does IPCC stop pollution? Cap and Trade? Carbon Credits? Population Control?
Who gains? Who Do these schemes serve?

Can you prove CO2 is a pollutant? If you can, you will be rich. You see its a vital trace gas - vital for all life on earth as we know it.

 

[kimmielittle]

St. John of the Cross says that to achieve union with God, one must become detached from all things “not God” – all worldly goods, pleasures, self-glories and ego-satisfactions, even spiritual goods, e.g. seeking and delighting in apparitions and spiritual consolations, etc. (No wonder people don’t put up statues of him ).

Actually, since AGW denies GOD - GOD’s Nature And HAS to place MAN above GOD

 

[lynnvinc]

As a matter of fact, CO2 is 0.038% (that’s right, thirty-eight one thousanth of a percent) by volume of the atmosphere. H2O isranges from 1 to 5% by volume. Rhetorical question; which has more effect on global warming?
I have seen this comparison made:
If the atmosphere were a 100 story tall building, the amount of man-made CO2 would be equivalent to the thickness of the linoleum on the first floor.

Yes, isn’t it amazing how such small molecules can have such a big impact. Science never fails to amaze me. Just think, without the natural greenhouse effect we wouldn’t be here to discuss AGW.

RE H2O, the scientists know this is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 – they’ve never denied that. However, since H2O molecules only stay in the atmosphere a few days or weeks, it is a feedback rather than a forcing. CO2 stays up a lot longer, and a portion of CO2 can stay up to 100,000 years.

What happens is the CO2 causes slightly warmer conditions, then water evaporates from water bodies, and soil and plants, dessicating them (making them prone to wildfires, etc); the H2O then more greatly warms the earth. And under certain weather conditions, comes down as deluges, flooding out people, etc. Or being more “fuel” for more intense hurricanes.

Science is fascinating. And we need to listen to the scientists…

 

[kimmielittle]

Gee Kimmie…they left out my two favorites…GE and DuPont. Two companies I used to respect and now consider opportunistic prostitutes.

Oh, they are invested in it …Just not a CRU

 

[portarica]

ABSOLUTELY!!!

How does IPCC stop pollution? Cap and Trade? Carbon Credits? Population Control?
Who gains? Who Do these schemes serve?

Can you prove CO2 is a pollutant? If you can, you will be rich. You see its a vital trace gas - vital for all life on earth as we know it.

Many things in excess cause damage to our bodies and health. Are the financial schemes like cap and trade the answer? I don’t think so, they just encourage the movement of pollution and give economic benefit to the movers as opposed to really addressing the issue.

So why are we not reducing pollution because it is just better for mankind? Mainly because doing so would be against the economic interests of those that benefit from the maintenance of the ability to pollute and it’s close cousin- unsafe working conditions.

Its why we say the US can’t compete in manufacturing anymore, because we usually want our workers to be safe and not involved in destroying the environment( with the exceptions for the energy industry that has managed exemptions from many regulations that safeguard people and the environment).

On a political thought it is strange that in the climate change or pollution world we are most closely aligned with the interests of China in preserving the right to pollute.

Peace

 

[Ender]

And I think that explains in large part why so many Americans and other rich people in the world today cannot accept the science of AGW, and are so busy grasping at rotting straws to disprove it, and would be willing to risk losing heaven than risk even a few pennies of their rich way of life, or their self-justifications and self-glories.

I am constantly struck by the dichotomy of this argument: “we do God’s will by saving the planet … which we can’t do because of you rotten, greedy, no-good people who oppose us.” I forget - is sanctimony an argument? I wonder how it is that you can feel so strongly the need to serve God by protecting his creation while using tactics that he has been pretty clear about rejecting. Is it only greens who have received dispensation from the command not to judge others? If one believes in AGW is one thereby justified in uncharitably interpreting their opponents actions?

You have lost the scientific argument or you wouldn’t feel the need to mischaracterize those who disagree with you as selfish and greedy. That by your tactics you also lose the moral argument as well hasn’t seemed to sink in yet. Like you, we are doing what we think is right. Unlike you we don’t find it necessary - or proper - to slander you for the choices you make based on your (lack of) understanding of the science involved.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

I am constantly struck by the dichotomy of this argument: “we do God’s will by saving the planet … which we can’t do because of you rotten, greedy, no-good people who oppose us.” I forget - is sanctimony an argument? I wonder how it is that you can feel so strongly the need to serve God by protecting his creation while using tactics that he has been pretty clear about rejecting. Is it only greens who have received dispensation from the command not to judge others? If one believes in AGW is one thereby justified in uncharitably interpreting their opponents actions?

You have lost the scientific argument or you wouldn’t feel the need to mischaracterize those who disagree with you as selfish and greedy. That by your tactics you also lose the moral argument as well hasn’t seemed to sink in yet. Like you, we are doing what we think is right. Unlike you we don’t find it necessary - or proper - to slander you for the choices you make based on your (lack of) understanding of the science involved.

Ender

BRILLIANTLY SAID:thumbsup:

 

[kimmielittle]

Many things in excess cause damage to our bodies and health. Are the financial schemes like cap and trade the answer? I don’t think so, they just encourage the movement of pollution and give economic benefit to the movers as opposed to really addressing the issue.

So why are we not reducing pollution because it is just better for mankind?

Actually, we are

** 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.
Per capita GHG emissions fell 16% in the United States from 2000 to 2009. This is half again as large as the 11% reduction in the highest income portion of the European Union (EU-15). Among EU-15 nations for which data was provided, per capita GHG emissions were down 14% in the United Kingdom, 12% in France and Italy, and 11% in Germany. Spain, where economic reality is forcing a reduction in support for its highly touted “green” energy program, reduced per capita GHG emissions by little more than one-third the US rate, at 6%. The Netherlands achieved a 3% reduction (Figure).
http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-usghg.png