Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

[lynnvinc]

thesurvivalgardener.com/synthetic-nitrogen-fertilizer-destroy-soil-carbon/

Yeah, I don’t either.

What!!! You mean you don’t have to sit around wringing your hands and fretting about man made global warming to be an environmentalist? No way!!!

Check out my sunflower:
No synthetic fertilizer here!! Compost and Milorganite.

Its a little prettier to look at than hockey stick graphs.

There are many environmental issues, and synthetic fertilizer is surely one of them. It is also partly responsible for the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and loss of soil.

Not sure why an environmentalist concerned about other env issues would be against accepting the reality of and mitigating CC, esp since doing so helps to mitigate a number of other env problems.

Since there ARE so many env issues that could be divisive so no issue gets addressed, one environmentalist wrote we should all join together and champion each others’ causes or we may end up hanging on separate gibbets. Which actually led me at one point to include a program on EMFs from a big interstate overhead electric cables being proposed, and other issues I was not very aware of. I’ve learned a lot over the years by listening to other env issues.

As a teen in the 60s I was concerned about erosion, depletion of finite resources, local pollution issue, species loss, etc. I had some basic understanding from science readings of the greenhouse effect, but didn’t really get into that issue until the late 80s when it came to public attention.

 

[robertmidwest]

express.co.uk/news/science/824088/Stephen-Hawking-Donald-Trump-climate-change-venus

This is why no one takes man made global warming serious.

 

[lynnvinc]

express.co.uk/news/science/824088/Stephen-Hawking-Donald-Trump-climate-change-venus

This is why no one takes man made global warming serious.

Eventually the Earth will become like Venus maybe in some billion years as the sun becomes brighter and hotter on its way to self-destruction.

There was one climate scientist for some time who did say our warming could push the system into a Venus syndrome by releasing CH4 from melting permafrost and ocean clathrates, but he soon after took that back. However, most climate scientists are saying we could push the system into a life inhospitable regime in which many species go extinct (which has happened on Earth before during severe warming episodes) and food crops fail, making it difficult for people, causing lots of deaths. Better to mitigate this, turn off lights not in use and the many other things that are feasible.

Hawking is not a climate scientist, so why are you listening to people who are not climate scientists to get your information about climate science – that goes for all the bogus denialists working for the CC denialist industry who pretend to know and do climate science, as well.

It’s a jungle out there. Better to stick to peer-reviewed articles from reputable science journals.

 

[robertmidwest]

profmondo.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/green-scrupulosity/

And ultimately, that’s what so much of this green scrupulosity boils down to. These are people who, in the larger view, have it pretty easy — the people of Burkina Faso probably aren’t concerned about volatile organic compounds. Consequently, these elites feel guilty and fall prey to scupulosity. That, of course is their problem, but it becomes our problem when they begin to project their own hang-ups on me. Fanatics are unpleasant, meddling neighbors, whether they’re religious or green. However, we can hope to avoid the autos da fe — too much carbon.

This guy nails it.

Environmentalism is the new Golden Calf. A large carbon footprint I is the new mortal sin.
Man made global warming is the new scrupulosity.

 

[robertmidwest]

thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

The rejection of traditional religion in these quarters has created a vacuum unlikely to go unfilled; human nature seems to demand a search for order and meaning, and nowadays there is no shortage of options on the menu of belief. Some searchers syncretize Judeo-Christian theology with Eastern or New Age spiritualism. Others seek through science the ultimate answers of our origins, or dream of high-tech transcendence by merging with machines — either approach depending not on rationalism alone but on a faith in the goodness of what rationalism can offer. For some individuals and societies, the role of religion seems increasingly to be filled by environmentalism.

Some searchers syncretize Judeo-Christian theology with environmentalism.

 

[lynnvinc]

profmondo.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/green-scrupulosity/

This guy nails it.

Environmentalism is the new Golden Calf. A large carbon footprint I is the new mortal sin.
Man made global warming is the new scrupulosity.

I should point out that the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill,” but it doesn’t say it’s all right to kill thru environmental harms.

I as a Christian came to understand that we are contributing to peoples death thru our environmental harms. It was a time 1989 when I was becoming a lay Carmelite (OCDS) and looking into my faults and flaws. That stuck out, my contributions to the droughts and famines in Africa. I didn’t need 95% certainty, just the knowledge that CC contributes to droughts was enough for me. Then I realized I had to do something about it, reduce my harms.

It was an extremely painful realization, so I guess I shouldn’t fault anyone who is unable to face it.

 

[robertmidwest]

I should point out that the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill,” but it doesn’t say it’s all right to kill thru environmental harms.

I as a Christian came to understand that we are contributing to peoples death thru our environmental harms. It was a time 1989 when I was becoming a lay Carmelite (OCDS) and looking into my faults and flaws. That stuck out, my contributions to the droughts and famines in Africa. I didn’t need 95% certainty, just the knowledge that CC contributes to droughts was enough for me. Then I realized I had to do something about it, reduce my harms.

It was an extremely painful realization, so I guess I shouldn’t fault anyone who is unable to face it.

Please talk with a priest or catholic therapist about scrupulosity.

 

[pnewton]

express.co.uk/news/science/824088/Stephen-Hawking-Donald-Trump-climate-change-venus

This is why no one takes man made global warming serious.

Ironic that you respond with such inaccuracy about inaccuracy. This thread has posters that take global warming seriously. Moreover, the topic of the thread has in it the premise that the Holy Father takes global warming seriously. Since when do* faithful *Catholics get to ignore the Holy Father, or worse yet, write him off as having a deficiency with scrupulosity, or committing the sin of idolatry?

 

[Ender]

Since when do* faithful *Catholics get to ignore the Holy Father…

It is not a question of ignoring him, but of disagreeing with his prudential opinion about the nature of a scientific question. And faithful Catholics have had that right pretty much forever.

Ender

 

[robertmidwest]

americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/climate_compulsions.html

Do people suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) worry a lot about global warming/climate change? We don’t have to speculate because Mr. M.K. Jones took a survey of OCD patients and wrote it up for the Australia New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. He discovered that 28% of OCD sufferers do indeed obsess about climate change. Their biggest worry is wasting energy. They also worried about their pets dying of thirst.

Sound familiar?

 

[holyrood]

You are making absurd assumptions here. This isn’t a matter of either/or. It’s also far more nuanced that what you claim.

After reading a great deal of the scientific thoughts tossed back and forth on the 24th and 25th pages, I came back to read the OP. The title of this thread alone is full of assumptions and false ‘givens.’ I wasn’t really surprised to see who posted such a thing. He seems to be here primarily to agitate–and of course to set everybody straight about what they must believe.

It starts with the false assumption that all Trump supporters believe one thing, and hints that all Trump supporters are therefore somehow against the Pope–is this perhaps another way of trotting out that tired old claim that all Trump supporters are Bad People?

There is no requirement for Catholics to believe every word that comes from the Pope’s mouth. From: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4294/which-doctrines-are-catholics-required-to-accept

And so to reconcile with the question and answer pair in the Keenan’s Catechism, it’s important to note that the pope himself is not infallible: he only has the ability to speak infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. This doesn’t happen all the time: it’s a very rare occurrence used only in very specific situations (to date, only about the Marian dogmas mentioned in my answer).

Furthermore, I would like to know when and where the Pope earned his MS in climatology or any other field that makes him an expert on climate change.

There is the false assumption that one must EITHER believe in man-made climate change OR be pro-life. This is a false (not to mention foolish) dichotomy.

The issue is posed as a question of who is more trustworthy–the Pope or Trump. Again, this is a ridiculous question, which also throws in the clear attempt to ‘sway’ the answer by saying Trump has ‘attacked’ the Pope (subtext: you’re not a good Catholic if you trust Trump on climate change more than you trust the Pope on climate change.) Again, simply not true.

My answer–I’d trust the Pope more on theological questions. I’d trust Trump more on climate change questions because it is more within his job description to know about climate change than it is within the Pope’s. Trump has advisers and experts specifically for such questions, as they must be addressed as part of his job more directly than by the Pope.

Neither of them has formal education in the subject.

 

[pnewton]

americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/climate_compulsions.html

Sound familiar?

It sounds very familiar. It is an ad hominem argument. It happens all the time.

 

[pnewton]

Furthermore, I would like to know when and where the Pope earned his MS in climatology or any other field that makes him an expert on climate change.

That is rather rude. People with out degrees in theology have weighed in thinking they know more than the Pope what the limits of his authority are.

The Church is not gagged in all areas where certainty does not exist. Even the possibility, much less the probability of life being put at risk is a moral issue. Prudence is still a virtue. Unless on has a moral certainty that an action is safe, the probability that it might be reckless should not be ignored.

This whole argument has revolved around the idea that it is only a theory that man is contributing to global warming. I reject the premise that this must be proven. As long as the evidence exists that an action might result in harm to another, the burden of proof shifts to those who deny this to justify the action as safe. One does not need proof to set safety standards. If those standards are set based on best available evidence, those who wish to set those standards aside are the ones who must show the compelling evidence why they can be set aside safely.

 

[robertmidwest]

dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend

.

 

[lynnvinc]

“Volvo Announces ‘Historic End’ to Combustion Engine, All Cars Going Electric”

ecowatch.com/volvo-electric-cars-2453719182.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=e8df0e85a9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-e8df0e85a9-85957569

It is interesting that Volvo is owned by China, which is keen on getting those EVs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Volvo Announces ‘Historic End’ to Combustion Engine, All Cars Going Electric”

ecowatch.com/volvo-electric-cars-2453719182.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=e8df0e85a9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-e8df0e85a9-85957569

It is interesting that Volvo is owned by China, which is keen on getting those EVs.

I see that Volvo is still going to produce gasoline and diesel powered cars. So this is nothing unusual, since all auto makers produce some electric powered cars.

I can see how electric vehicles might just be fine in some places. In America, where distances are much longer than in, say, western Europe, I truly have my doubts that electric vehicles are going to be the most common anytime in the near future.

 

[Ender]

The Church is not gagged in all areas where certainty does not exist.

The church is the authority in regard to faith and morals. With regard to political - or especially scientific - issues, the opinions of her clergy have no more authority than those of anyone else. They carry only the authority of their argument, not of the person who makes it.

Even the possibility, much less the probability of life being put at risk is a moral issue.

If there was no cost, no risk, no down side to believing things like the Paris Accords were reasonable then it would be immoral to do nothing, but that’s not the case. There are costs, risks, and a very large down side to believing that “sustainable” energy is a suitable substitute for carbon based fuels. There is certainly no moral issue in disbelieving the MMGW story and rejecting its recommendations.

Unless on has a moral certainty that an action is safe, the probability that it might be reckless should not be ignored.

I agree. The disagreement is over which actions should be considered reckless.

This whole argument has revolved around the idea that it is only a theory that man is contributing to global warming. I reject the premise that this must be proven. As long as the evidence exists that an action might result in harm to another, the burden of proof shifts to those who deny this to justify the action as safe.

The other perspective on this is that we are being asked to do things we know will be harmful to mitigate a problem that is claimed to exist without justification, and which in any case does not appear possible to mitigate in any meaningful way.

One does not need proof to set safety standards. If those standards are set based on best available evidence, those who wish to set those standards aside are the ones who must show the compelling evidence why they can be set aside safely.

We reject the claim that the “best available evidence” supports your position. Don’t you recognize that?

Ender

 

[LucyEm]

…We reject the claim that the “best available evidence” supports your position.

Who is in possession of the “best available evidence”? Is it not the world’s climate scientists? Who is best equipped to assess it? What do they (in aggregate) conclude?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Who is in possession of the “best available evidence”? Is it not the world’s climate scientists? Who is best equipped to assess it? What do they (in aggregate) conclude?

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Go on the merits of the data itself.

Also, as one notable weatherman noted “many of the people who discuss this are not climate scientists in the first place”.

 

[LucyEm]

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Go on the merits of the data itself.

No. It’s an acknowledgement of where expertise lies, not authority. It is hubris to believe we can all just “analyse the data”.