T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
I take the word of hundreds if not thousands of medeorologists and climate scientists over one old cranky one.
- Status
U
upant
Guest
it doesn’t appear that you saw the same video.
the global warming petition project has been signed by 31,487 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs.
even the number who agree are in question.
forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#b6b43ef3f9ff
how many of Gore’s original forecast came true?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Courts have ruled that Gore’s statements lack honesty and must be accompanied by “clarifications”:
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Thanks for posting this. I for one have considered CC one of the more serious pro-life issues for nearly 30 years. I know some here only consider abortion a pro-life issue, but there are many ways in which we contribute to people’s death, and CC is one of them, and if we follow a business-as-usual path and fail to mitigate CC, then it is possible that we will be wiping out a huge chunk of humanity over the next 100s & 1000s of years (from our current and near future contributions).
I am also against abortion, but consider wiping out a large portion of humanity a really bad way to reduce abortion.
As laypersons, we should not require 95% certainty re a serious threat to humanity. That’s why churches, including the Catholic Church and statements by JPII, have been telling people to mitigate it at least since 1990.
That’s when I started mitigating and we were surprised to find was could do so now down to less than 60% of our 1990 emissions cost-effectively, without lowering our living standards and saving us $1000s to boot. So there is absolutely NO REASON for people not to take this issue seriously and mitigate it in whatever ways they can.
I was hoping nevertheless that he would do what he could to mitigate CC, despite perhaps being invested in oil interests or having friends in the oil & coal industries. After all, Obama did something about it, even tho I think he was supported by the coal industry as a senator – he did more than I expected, considering that.
However, there are many ways we can “fight” it that would help the poor and save money for us all – we should do those things first…which could get us down to at least a 50% to 70% below our 1990 emissions AND strengthen our economy.
We can all do much as the personal, household, and business levels.
As for policies, one proposal that sounds good is “Fee and Dividend,” where by a fee is put on each barrel of oil and ton of coal than comes out of the ground or into our ports – and 100% of that money is divvied up equally and given to all SS card holders in monthly installments. They can then use that money to pay the resulting extra costs for fossil fuel energy or become energy/resource efficient/conservative, go on alt energy when feasible, and really be on the road to prosperity and saving lives that would have been harmed by fossil fuel extraction, processing, burning (local to global pollution), and waste disposal.
The point is if we really care about life on earth, we will abstain from having abortions AND fight ACC – one doesn’t preclude the other. And we will work to get others to abstain from abortions and emitting GHGs profligately, non-efficiently, and non-conservatively – in whatever ways we can, thru gov policies and other avenues.
As I tell my environmentalist friends (who may not be Catholic or into the abortion issue), it doesn’t make sense to save the earth for the children by killing children. They at least listen to me, while the CC denialist group does not.
I see you are new to CAF. Don’t be demoralized or disheartened by people here who are CC denialists. I tend to be demoralized by them, but I also see it as my obligation to speak out on this issue. Not to do so would be a sin.
I am also against abortion, but consider wiping out a large portion of humanity a really bad way to reduce abortion.
It reached 95% scientific certainty in 1995, but scientists have been theorizing about anthropogenic climate change (ACC) for nearly 200 years, once they discovered the natural greenhouse effect and how it has allowed a warm enough climate on earth for life to exist. Aware of industrial emissions of CO2 and other GHGs they have been postulating ACC for nearly 200 years, but actual observational evidence of ACC, teasing out signal from noise (since there are other factors that impact climate), only happened in 1995.
As laypersons, we should not require 95% certainty re a serious threat to humanity. That’s why churches, including the Catholic Church and statements by JPII, have been telling people to mitigate it at least since 1990.
That’s when I started mitigating and we were surprised to find was could do so now down to less than 60% of our 1990 emissions cost-effectively, without lowering our living standards and saving us $1000s to boot. So there is absolutely NO REASON for people not to take this issue seriously and mitigate it in whatever ways they can.
Even if CC were not an issue I wouldn’t trust Trump at all. I’ve never had any respect for him – for his personal life or professional life. He comes across to me now even more as a liar and cheat, and very mean and uncouth, loutish.
I was hoping nevertheless that he would do what he could to mitigate CC, despite perhaps being invested in oil interests or having friends in the oil & coal industries. After all, Obama did something about it, even tho I think he was supported by the coal industry as a senator – he did more than I expected, considering that.
I’d like to see all fossil fuel money out of politics. And it would be great if subsidies and tax-breaks to the fossil fuel industries could be eliminated or reduced.
However, there are many ways we can “fight” it that would help the poor and save money for us all – we should do those things first…which could get us down to at least a 50% to 70% below our 1990 emissions AND strengthen our economy.
We can all do much as the personal, household, and business levels.
As for policies, one proposal that sounds good is “Fee and Dividend,” where by a fee is put on each barrel of oil and ton of coal than comes out of the ground or into our ports – and 100% of that money is divvied up equally and given to all SS card holders in monthly installments. They can then use that money to pay the resulting extra costs for fossil fuel energy or become energy/resource efficient/conservative, go on alt energy when feasible, and really be on the road to prosperity and saving lives that would have been harmed by fossil fuel extraction, processing, burning (local to global pollution), and waste disposal.
CC is a pro-life issue, but if you mean abortion, then at the personal level I would consider abortion a graver sin, since it seems to be more intentional. CC harms and killing are not intentional but more a byproduct of our living. To the extent we can feasibly reduce our contributions to ACC without harm to ourselves and families but refuse to do so, that would be somewhat more serious a sin. If we work hard to convince others that ACC is not real, that would be somewhat a more sin.
The point is if we really care about life on earth, we will abstain from having abortions AND fight ACC – one doesn’t preclude the other. And we will work to get others to abstain from abortions and emitting GHGs profligately, non-efficiently, and non-conservatively – in whatever ways we can, thru gov policies and other avenues.
As I tell my environmentalist friends (who may not be Catholic or into the abortion issue), it doesn’t make sense to save the earth for the children by killing children. They at least listen to me, while the CC denialist group does not.
I see you are new to CAF. Don’t be demoralized or disheartened by people here who are CC denialists. I tend to be demoralized by them, but I also see it as my obligation to speak out on this issue. Not to do so would be a sin.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You are right on that point. Even our Enlightenment-based Constitution (that is more into people’s property rights than right to life or a healthy environment) has provisions for making policies to mitigate CC.
You may be aware of the children who are suing the gov re climate change – first under Obama, but now the case is under Trump.
I started this thread about it a couple of months ago: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1037199
And here is their webpage that also explains their legal strategy: ourchildrenstrust.org/
It is based on the concept of “public trust,” in which the founding fathers the US were interested, in which the gov has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of our common resources – including our air and climate, they argue.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Including the Dixie Chicks and actors from Mash, dentists and all sorts of people with “Dr” and PhDs in far flung fields, and some who did not actually sign it and wanted their name removed.
P
pnewton
Guest
He has multiple posts here. He is no troll because you do not agree with him, like him, or think his style of posting too “bait-y”.
However, to the OP, posting YouTube video links is not conducive to discussion, in my own opinion.
H
Horton
Guest
You didn’t share the definition of Social Security, you shared what you thought was Social Security along with you ignorance of the US system. This is Social Security in the US ssa.gov/
Many poor people in the US would be very happy to tell inform you how wrong you are.
The poor in the US are assisted by states in some variation of Health & Welfare. Two completely separate programs.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
John*Coleman (see desmogblog.com/john-coleman)
Credentials: According to an article in Columbia Journalism Review, “Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism.”
Publications: According to a search of Google Scholar,*John Coleman has not published peer-reviewed research on climate change.
Not a reliable source on climate change!
U
upant
Guest
please speak to Al Gore’s credentials
U
upant
Guest
for the 97% who support the theory, the same argument applies.
forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#b6b43ef3f9ff
Forbes article about the magical constructed number of 97%
U
upant
Guest
yes he does have several post. my interactions with them lead me to believe he is a persistent debate troll.
P
pnewton
Guest
And since you engage in ad hominems like this…
I do not get the sort of name-calling you are doing. I mean, a young man comes on here for discussion. He doesn’t deserve that sort of treatment. He at least is trying to engage in adult conversation.
P
pnewton
Guest
He has no credentials. Surely you must know this has no bearing on* this *journalist’s lack of scientific credentials.
E
esieffe
Guest
meltzerboy
New member
In general, the American people tend not to take anything seriously if it does not affect them almost immediately. The long-range predicted effects of climate change will not convince many simply because the effects are “long-range” and based on “predictions.” Americans care about what affects them and their family right now: issues involving jobs, healthcare, the economy. They do not even care very much about the potential threat of ISIS to the U.S. on a large-scale despite isolated terrorist incidents at home and abroad. We are a sorry lot, who will only wake up (perhaps) when threats such as climate change and terrorism are right at our doorstep. And the sad part is that many of our current leaders in Congress and the administration are not so much better when it is a matter of thinking of and planning for the future. Many of them and us live only for the moment.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2695&pictureid=18812
I caught this fish last October 25th. Even though it was late October it warm and I didn’t need a jacket. God bless the global warming that made that possible! Thank God for the fossil fuel burning vehicle that transported me to the river from my home that glorious day!!! Then afterward I got to experience air conditioning, electric lights and television! And…an electrically refrigerated beer!
I caught this fish last October 25th. Even though it was late October it warm and I didn’t need a jacket. God bless the global warming that made that possible! Thank God for the fossil fuel burning vehicle that transported me to the river from my home that glorious day!!! Then afterward I got to experience air conditioning, electric lights and television! And…an electrically refrigerated beer!
R
robertmidwest
Guest
God bless our president!
Y
YADA
Guest
This is patently false - I am an environmentalist … even worked a an environmental engineer earlier in my career - cleaning up environmental contamination - you broadly sweep …
I care about the environment for my children and grandchildren …
I have liberal friends and conservative friends … my observation is that more conservatives work in the soup kitchens and food pantries - regularly - as in every week … the liberals show up at Christmas time and Thanksgiving …
I recycle far more than any of my liberal friends but they have castigated me for owning a truck … however I also own 58 acres - where I use that vehicle in caring for it.
I was picking up litter on highways when I was younger than you are - I have grandchildren older than you].
I also see the big government programs that have decimated our poor - like the war on poverty - which 50 years later is a failed policy that has done far more harm to our poor - especially minority communities …
Talk is cheap - saying you care is easy - really doing something to make a difference is hard … - the Paris Accord was just a way to suck US tax dollars to overseas as a redistribution of wealth - it had nothing to do with stopping global warming or reducing carbon emissions
R
robertmidwest
Guest
- Status