Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TeenCatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I skipped the last 6 pages of this discussion…too long & pointless.

I don’t believe in Global Warming or man made Climate Change…but I believe man should not pollute the earth and the U.S.A. started about 35 years ago making manufacturers filter the smoke & pollutants being belched into the air and water.
Everyone can do their part like not burning leaves, not throwing trash out the car windows etc.
 
I skipped the last 6 pages of this discussion…too long & pointless.

I don’t believe in Global Warming or man made Climate Change…but I believe man should not pollute the earth and the U.S.A. started about 35 years ago making manufacturers filter the smoke & pollutants being belched into the air and water.
Code:
                 Everyone can do their part like not burning leaves, not throwing trash out the car windows etc.
Well, I already tried to explain that the Church teaches that Climate Change is real.

I encourage you to actually do research, and realize that most to all of the recent Pope’s have had some sort of teaching on Climate Change.

The magisterium isnt something to fool around with.

Why don’t you “believe” in climate change?
 
We have a big storm rolling through the city tonight. Is MMGW the cause?
 
Link to Laudato Si’

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf
The climate is a common good, belonging
to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a
complex system linked to many of the essential
conditions for human life. A very solid scientific
consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing
a disturbing warming of the climatic system.
In recent decades this warming has been accompanied
by a constant rise in the sea level and, it
would appear, by an increase of extreme weather
events, even if a scientifically determinable cause
cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon.
Humanity is called to recognize the need
for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption,
in order to combat this warming or at
19
least the human causes which produce or aggravate
it. It is true that there are other factors (such
as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit
and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific
studies indicate that most global warming in
recent decades is due to the great concentration
of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a
result of human activity. As these gases build up
in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of
heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface.
The problem is aggravated by a model of development
based on the intensive use of fossil fuels,
which is at the heart of the worldwide energy
system. Another determining factor has been an
increase in changed uses of the soil, principally
deforestation for agricultural purposes.
24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle.
 
I never got an answer to my question so I must ask it again.

This is a quoted directly from the encyclical.

Why is there such a shift in the language when talking about GW and MMGW? The words “it is true” when talking about volcanoes, the earth’s orbit, solar activity as causes of GW. But MMGW switches to “some studies indicate”.

“Some studies indicate” doesn’t sound like they could get a conviction.

Note the words I high lighted in blue. If the church was not open to some doubt about MMGW why would the encyclical include the phrase “even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned”?
 
In regards to post 284: Sorry I got interrupted while editing and it timed out before I could post. I had to be creative in the use of the back button and cutting/pasting to correct as best as possible.

The following should be part of post 284:

I never got an answer to my question so I must ask it again.

This is a quoted directly from the encyclical.

Why is there such a shift in the language when talking about GW and MMGW? The words “it is true” when talking about volcanoes, the earth’s orbit, solar activity as causes of GW. But MMGW switches to “some studies indicate”.

“Some studies indicate” doesn’t sound like they could get a conviction.

Note the words I high lighted in blue. If the church was not open to some doubt about MMGW why would the encyclical include the phrase “even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned”?
 
Would you go to articles 60 and 61,Robert?
Would they add to understanding?
I’ m not copying them in case they don’ t address your question.

Thanks for your copy- paste!
 
Well, I already tried to explain that the Church teaches that Climate Change is real.
Just a clarification. The Church does not teach science. What it teaches is that in light of the scientific evidence, that addressing the issue of human impact on the climate is the moral thing to do.
 
Why is there such a shift in the language when talking about GW and MMGW?
Because English.

This shift in thought build on the previous sentence, “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

This is not a shift. It is continuity, as the Holy Father is an excellent writer, or his staff is anyway. Also, he is not prone to exaggeration, as are some in the green community. Of course there are other factors involved in the climate. Pope Francis only addresses the moral responsibility that we have not to worsen or hasten conditions which will leave our grandchildren and great-grandchildren a poorer world to live in.

I note that this thread was started by someone who is 15 years old. I think this rather appropriate. The odds are very high this will be his planet long after I am dust. I cannot morally justify wasting resources, or damaging more than I must, this world we share. True, there are multiple moral ways to act in how we take care of this world, but any action based on selfishness is not moral.
 
Well, I already tried to explain that the Church teaches that Climate Change is real.
This is very misleading. Saying “the church teaches” implies something that is not in fact true. It suggests that “climate change is real” is a doctrine, which it quite clearly is not.
I encourage you to actually do research, and realize that most to all of the recent Pope’s have had some sort of teaching on Climate Change.
The debate over climate change is scientific; it is not a matter of faith…at least as far as the church is concerned. The pope’s comments add nothing to the science involved, so for all those whose position on the matter is informed by science there is no reason whatever to change that position.
The magisterium isnt something to fool around with.
True, but it is something that needs to be understood.

Ender
 
THIS!!! It’s very offensive for a young person to come on here and tell me what I’m supposed to believe as a catholic. Said young person needs to learn the distinction between the Pope’s encyclicals of which there are many and infallible church teaching of which there are only a handful. I’m supposed to give the respect due to the magisterial encyclicals, but I do not have to believe them to be infallible.

I’m no expert on climate science, so I don’t usually get involved in these debates because frankly a lot of it is over my head. But, I do not believe this is settled science at least not completely. In fact, if I’m not mistaken that is why Pope Francis enlisted scientists to study the matter and report back to him so that he could produce Laudato Si. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

However, Laudato Si is not an infallable teaching of the church.
I agree with you, Janet. There is conflicting evidence about Climate Change… but calling it Climate Change is one of the problems. The climate does change… in cycles… We are a mountainous state but have seashells in the limestone… Climate changes… the earth changes. God told us to go and be fruitful and multiply. He didn’t say multiply until you think it is endangering the earth. He is in control. He made the earth. He made us stewards. He can handle it… We don’t have to kill our children because of over population. Still we should try to curb our wasteful ways and keep the place clean. Make rules to help people–NOT PUNISH some and reward others…
 
Laudato Si’:
A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing
a disturbing warming of the climatic system.
“Disturbing” is not a scientific term, and there is little evidence that there is a “solid scientific consensus” in support of such a belief.
In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level…
Sea level rise has been constant for the last century, so while the statement is true it is not terribly meaningful.
… and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events
This, however, appears not to be the case. Finding this claim in Laudato Si makes it no more accurate than seeing it in the local newspaper. The numbers do not support this.
It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface.
Is it possible to read this and somehow conclude it is a question of faith or morals? The fact that such a paragraph is in the middle of an encyclical makes it no more inerrant than finding it in the middle of a post on this forum. It goes to a question of fact, of scientific truth, and its validity depends entirely on whether its claims are scientifically verifiable. Its inclusion in an encyclical doesn’t change what it is: a question of science.

Ender
 
Just a clarification. The Church does not teach science. What it teaches is that in light of the scientific evidence, that addressing the issue of human impact on the climate is the moral thing to do.
As you said, the church does not teach science, and since the determination of what needs to be done is based on an understanding of the science involved, there is no question of one approach being more moral than another. One is morally obligated to do what he thinks is best, not what someone else thinks is best. We have no moral obligation to ignore what we believe is true.

Ender
 
Pope Francis only addresses the moral responsibility that we have not to worsen or hasten conditions which will leave our grandchildren and great-grandchildren a poorer world to live in.
Exactly! Thank you!

He reinforces the humans have a responsibility to care of the earth. Period. NOWHERE does he say man made global warming is a fact.
 
…I note that this thread was started by someone who is 15 years old. I think this rather appropriate. The odds are very high this will be his planet long after I am dust. I cannot morally justify wasting resources, or damaging more than I must, this world we share. True, there are multiple moral ways to act in how we take care of this world, but any action based on selfishness is not moral.
I was thinking the same thing.

If we pursue a business as usual path, things will become very bad for most of humanity within a few decades. I won’t be here. I’m well over the hill, but TeenCatholicGuy probably will be here. Even if we mitigate CC, there are plenty of harms in the pipes – we cannot sustain our good way of life, but can only hope to cut the losses.

Right now CC is harming food production in some poor countries in various ways, but it is expected to harm crops in the US by 2050. As for now with longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization our crop productivity in the US is somewhat increasing and expected to do so until around 2050, after which they expect a sharp decline due to the warming and its knock-on effects.

Maybe the rich won’t be impacted very much – only their wealth will go down as CC negatively impacts economies, but they will have enough “padding” to manage. Many others living close to the margin will be greatly harmed.

I wonder if there will still be CC skeptics in the future when things start to get bad after 2050 and extremely bad after 2100.

I’m thinking there could be a flip from skepticism and under-attribution of CC harms (the case now) to over-attribution…so that people start blaming every bad thing on CC…and on our generations. Maybe they’ll have a name for us, like “the doomers.” Baby boomers eventually become known as the doomers, the baby doomers. :eek:
 
CC skeptics
Can you please be more specific? Do you mean people who don’t believe in man made global warming (climate change)?

I notice how many times in post you use CC but left out any reference to man made CC. I also notice how you have failed to respond to my questions about the MMCC in the Laudato Si’ quotes

I am going to hold you accountable and ask you to own up to what you have been preaching. You can’t just quietly change positions without acknowledging it.

Do you still believe the CC in Laudato Si’ teaches man made climate change (global warming) is a fact?
🍿
 
washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/06/02/professor-who-campaigned-to-ban-trans-fats-dies-at-102/?utm_term=.e645d5cbe868

Does anyone remember when butter, eggs, dairy were bad for you?

Now suddenly they are not, but instead it’s the trans fat that was used to substitute the eggs, butter, and dairy.

That giant swing in the scientific community only took place in a generation. Hmmmm…I wonder if it possible that the same thing could happen in the climate change debate?

Do you think the dairy industry might have tried to influence the studies? Is it possible that the trans fat industry might have tried to influence the studies? Hmmmm…I wonder if that could be happening in the climate change debate?
 
Would you go to articles 60 and 61,Robert?
Would they add to understanding?
I’ m not copying them in case they don’ t address your question.

Thanks for your copy- paste!
Here is paragraphs 60 and 61:
  1. Finally, we need to acknowledge that different
    approaches and lines of thought have
    emerged regarding this situation and its possible
    solutions. At one extreme, we find those who
    doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell
    us that ecological problems will solve themselves
    simply with the application of new technology
    and without any need for ethical considerations
    or deep change. At the other extreme are those
    who view men and women and all their interventions
    as no more than a threat, jeopardizing
    the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence
    of human beings on the planet should be
    reduced and all forms of intervention prohibited.
    Viable future scenarios will have to be generated
    between these extremes, since there is no
    44
    one path to a solution. This makes a variety of
    proposals possible, all capable of entering into
    dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive
    solutions.
  2. On many concrete questions, the Church
    has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she
    knows that honest debate must be encouraged
    among experts, while respecting divergent views.
    But we need only take a frank look at the facts
    to see that our common home is falling into serious
    disrepair. Hope would have us recognize that
    there is always a way out, that we can always redirect
    our steps, that we can always do something
    to solve our problems. Still, we can see signs that
    things are now reaching a breaking point, due to
    the rapid pace of change and degradation; these
    are evident in large-scale natural disasters as well
    as social and even financial crises, for the world’s
    problems cannot be analyzed or explained in isolation.
    There are regions now at high risk and,
    aside from all doomsday predictions, the present
    world system is certainly unsustainable from a
    number of points of view, for we have stopped
    thinking about the goals of human activity. “If
    we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately
    see that humanity has disappointed God’s
    expectations”.35
I do not see anything there that indicates the church teaches that man made global warming is a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top