Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

[pnewton]

Do you still believe the CC in Laudato Si’ teaches man made climate change (global warming) is a fact?

I challenge everyone here to actually find the verbiage that indicates the Catholic Church teaches man made global warming is a fact.

Of course one cannot find this statement. The Holy Father understands the meaning of words. “Fact” is one of those that most people here misuse. The Holy Father uses a more accurate phrase, “solid scientific consensus.”

 

[robertmidwest]

Of course one cannot find this statement. The Holy Father understands the meaning of words. “Fact” is one of those that most people here misuse. The Holy Father uses a more accurate phrase, “solid scientific consensus.”

He used “solid scientific consensus” to describe global warming/climate change.

He used “some studies indicate” to describe man made global warming. See the shift I am talking about?

Yes, you are also correct the word “fact” is very used very loosely. That is kind of the point I have been making all along.

And we have a few here who are telling others that they are bad catholics based on “facts”.

 

[robertmidwest]

Well, I already tried to explain that the Church teaches that Climate Change is real.

Again, we are kind of conveniently vacillating between GW/CC and man made GW/CC.

Please show me where the church teaches man made GW/CC. Laudato Si’ uses the prhase “some studies indicate” when referring to man made GW/CC.

“Some studies indicate” does not prove a fact.

Some studies indicate that butter are bad for your heart. Some studies indicate it’s trans fatty acid.

 

[robertmidwest]

each google search produces the same amount of CO2 as a pot of boiling water,

Are we talking about a one quart pot in Denver? Or a six quart pot in New Orleans?

Please cite a source for this? I think the worlds fossil fuels would be used up by now if this were true.

 

[robertmidwest]

yes he does have several post. my interactions with them lead me to believe he is a persistent debate troll.

 

[graciew]

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.

So was your concern addressed?

 

[graciew]

Ender:
[/INDENT]Claiming we have to believe something simply because the pope has taken a position on the matter is simply untrue.

Ender
What " position" has the Pope taken?
And what is the " matter" from his perspective in this Encyclical ?

 

[truetofaith]

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?

I said man made climate change. In the past 30 yrs. the earth’s temp. increased by 2/10 of a degree.
Man pollutes the earth but doesn’t cause it to heat up.

 

[truetofaith]

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?

I just want to point out that eggs, butter & dairy were created by God, so I’d rather put them in my body than some man made trans fat!

 

[pnewton]

He used “solid scientific consensus” to describe global warming/climate change.

He used “some studies indicate” to describe man made global warming. See the shift I am talking about?

Yes, you are also correct the word “fact” is very used very loosely. That is kind of the point I have been making all along.

And we have a few here who are telling others that they are bad catholics based on “facts”.

He also made the point that other factors affect global warming that are outside of our control. So, you are correct. This is the gist of the observations he made. I do not think many would disagree with these basics. However the Holy Father also teaches what an appropriate response should be to this situation, not man-made global warming, but the solid consensus of climate change and the studies that indicate the part that man may play.

If he were commenting on the sinfulness of Russian roulette, then the argument that most chambers were empty, or that one personally believes the chamber to be empty, would not change the moral irresponsibility of ignoring what might be, as long as there is evidence of what might be. Thus, we get to the flat Earth problem. The problem with those who believed in the flat Earth was that they deny the possibility of a round Earth in the face of evidence, even when that evidence became the preponderance of evidence. The problem with skeptics of man-made global warming is not their skepticism. That is all well and good. In fact, it might even be helpful. No, the problem is denying even the possibility, much less the probability(based on the percentage of the scientific community that believe it true), that we might be damaging the environment to the detriment of all mankind. I cannot morally put my personal consumption as a priority over global responsibility, and over responsibility to our descendants.

It is not straw man to say that the Pope is trying to teach science, but only because that it is the way Pope Francis has been presented at times here and in the media. However, it is a straw man to attack his encyclical for trying to be scientific because it is not.

 

[Ender]

What " position" has the Pope taken?
And what is the " matter" from his perspective in this Encyclical ?

This:* “**The Pope and the Vatican, as well as many Priests, Deacons and Bishops throughout the world have called Catholics to take a stand against Climate Change.”
*The fact that the pope et al have personal opinions about the scientific validity of the theory of MMGW does not mean that we have a moral obligation to agree. If the science was unconvincing before it is no more convincing now.

Ender

 

[upant]

If we pursue a business as usual path, things will become very bad for most of humanity within a few decades.

this is exactly what the paris executive order did. it allowed china and india to increase emissions for the next ten years before they re-evaluate.

so explain to me why this is good for a dying planet that has only a few decades left.

even though they have been saying that since gore wrote his book in 1992

 

[Cathoholic]

robertmidwest.

Very insightful reading of Church documents.

Thanks for sharing those insights.

robertmidwest . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnvinc View Post

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?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14721035&postcount=295

Here is the link to Laudato Sl’:

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fr…dato-si_en.pdf

I challenge everyone here to actually find the verbiage that indicates the Catholic Church teaches man made global warming is a fact.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14721050&postcount=297

(Pope Francis) used “solid scientific consensus” to describe global warming/climate change.

He used “some studies indicate” to describe man made global warming. See the shift I am talking about?

Yes, you are also correct the word “fact” is very used very loosely. That is kind of the point I have been making all along.

And we have a few here who are telling others that they are bad catholics based on “facts”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14721119&postcount=301

Again, we are kind of conveniently vacillating between GW/CC and man made GW/CC.

Please show me where the church teaches man made GW/CC. Laudato Si’ uses the prhase “some studies indicate” when referring to man made GW/CC.

“Some studies indicate” does not prove a fact.

Some studies indicate that butter are bad for your heart. Some studies indicate it’s trans fatty acid.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14721129&postcount=302

Nice analysis of yours robertmidwest on what the Encyclical says . . . . and . . . . on what is NOT SAID in the document.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is the link to Laudato Sl’:

w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf

I challenge everyone here to actually find the verbiage that indicates the Catholic Church teaches man made global warming is a fact.

I think it just assumes everyone accepts it as fact, so it is more about our moral responsibility to do something about it. It also mentions the “precautionary principle,” which is akin to “prudence,” in that even if we are not completely convinced CC is happening or human-caused, we still need to work to mitigate it.

 

[lynnvinc]

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…

The CC this time around IS caused by humans for the most part.

However, there are 2 types of skeptics - those who disagree there is any warming, and those who say the warming is NOT caused by humans – which seems to indicate they lack adequate education in the field, since GHGs have been known for nearly 200 years to cause a warmer climate than without them AND humans emissions of GHGs has been increasing, while natural ones have not been increasing…as verified by carbon isotopes.

By saying CC skeptics, I’m referring to both types.

 

[robertmidwest]

I think it just assumes everyone accepts it as fact…

Wow!!! You teach collegiate level classes!

 

[robertmidwest]

I think it just assumes everyone accepts it as fact, so it is more about our moral responsibility to do something about it. It also mentions the “precautionary principle,” which is akin to “prudence,” in that even if we are not completely convinced CC is happening or human-caused, we still need to work to mitigate it.

The OP stated in the first post that it was time to end the debate. You just did.

You think you have the moral authority to tell others that they are not living up to church teaching based on what you admitted you think and assume? On one hand I want to applaud you for having the hutzpah to admit this, but one the other I don’t think you really intended to let the truth out.

There is the argument that the left leads with their emotions rather than logic or facts. Your statement here supports that argument. You believe the church teaches MMGW as fact, because that is what you wanted to see in Laudato Si’. What, in your own words, you “think” is in there.

 

[Ender]

The CC this time around IS caused by humans for the most part.

As they say on trial shows “Assumes facts not in evidence.”

However, there are 2 types of skeptics - those who disagree there is any warming…

No one argues that there has not been warming, but it is an open question as to whether it is continuing, and this indicates the scope of the problem: even with all the focus on the subject, and the instrumentation devoted to it, scientists still cannot agree on whether there was a hiatus in warming, and if there was, whether it has ended.

… and those who say the warming is NOT caused by humans – which seems to indicate they lack adequate education in the field…

What is indicated here is an inability to distinguish an insult from an argument. I have several times posted this link to a paper that just came out in April which makes the claim that*once just the Natural Factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. *
Whether their analysis is accurate doesn’t change the fact that the people who made it are well acquainted with the field.

… since GHGs have been known for nearly 200 years to cause a warmer climate than without them AND humans emissions of GHGs has been increasing, while natural ones have not been increasing…as verified by carbon isotopes.

None of which changes the facts of the matter, which don’t appear to support the theory.*this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed.
*Apparently “denier” applies to anyone who believes a statement is probably not true if the evidence doesn’t support it. But I’m sure all this can be dismissed simply by labeling me a Trump supporter and a cafeteria Catholic.

Ender

 

[robertmidwest]

Wow!!! You teach collegiate level classes!

Edit:

It should have been…Wow!!! You teach collegiate level classes!!!

 

[robertmidwest]

So we can’t just “assume” the church is teaching MMGW as fact?