Climate Change News

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s odd is how they chose the temp during the Dalton Minimum (little ice age, low sunspots) to represent the ideal temp of the globe
 
Last edited:
HCTC said:
I don’t think that there is anyone who views receding ice and rising sea levels as “victory.”
Click to expand...
As Catholics, we view receding ice and rising sea levels as Divine Providence in action. Water is but one of God’s creatures moving toward its own perfection.

Unlike Deists, we do not believe God created and then abandoned the universe surrendering the cosmos to secondary causes, i.e. man.
V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.
Click to expand...
 
With all due respect, i’m Catholic, and I don’t view receding ice and rising sea levels the way that you do. . I know a large number of Catholics who do not share your viewpoint yet do not have an opinion in opposition with “V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE”
 
HCTC said:
With all due respect, i’m Catholic, and I don’t view receding ice and rising sea levels the way that you do. . I know a large number of Catholics who do not share your viewpoint yet do not have an opinion in opposition with “V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE”
Click to expand...
The post was to point out that some do view receding ice and rising sea as in God’s plan. And those who do believe so are in harmony with Catholic teaching. All creatures that move toward God’s perfection may be considered moving toward “victory.”
 
Last edited:
Stewards of Creation

The Bible contains a profound message about the stewardship of material creation: God created the world, but entrusts it to human beings. Caring for and cultivating the world involves the following:

*Joyful appreciation for the God-given beauty and wonder of nature;
*Protection and preservation of the environment, which would be the stewardship of ecological concern;
*Respect for human life—shielding life from threat and assault, doing everything that can be done to enhance this gift and make life flourish; and
*Development of this world through noble human effort—physical labor, the trades and professions, the arts and sciences. We call such effort “work.” Work is a fulfilling human vocation.

The Second Vatican Council points out that, through work, we build up not only our world but the Kingdom of God, already present among us. Work is a partnership with God—our share in a divine human collaboration in creation. It occupies a central place in our lives as Christian stewards.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/stewardship/index.cfm

Maybe we are on the same page but talking past each other?
 
Last edited:
HCTC said:
*Respect for human life—shielding life from threat and assault, doing everything that can be done to enhance this gift and make life flourish …
Click to expand...
An erroneous interpretation of the above is to argue that the protection and preservation of the environment may be done at the cost of human suffering or life. To do so would turn Divine Providence on its head.

No one argues that God’s gift should be abused. Nor should one argue that His gift should not be used.

Often a confusion between instrument and end leads one in error to act so as to protect or perfect the instrument at the expense of the end. The earth is the instrument; the flourishing of human life is the end.

What is considered the proper use of the instrument is considered by others to be abuse. To use the earth’s fossil fuels as sources of energy to improve the lives of humanity, especially those of the poor and needy in underdeveloped countries, should be encouraged.
 
  1. No one is arguing: “that the protection and preservation of the environment may be done at the cost of human suffering or life.”
    The intent of protecting and preserving the environment is only for the benefit of mankind and to honor the Lord God Almighty.
  2. It does not follow to conclude: “To use the earth’s fossil fuels as sources of energy to improve the lives of humanity, especially those of the poor and needy in underdeveloped countries, should be encouraged.”
My father was a petroleum engineer & an officer of an energy company. Big energy fed me; sheltered me; & sent me to college. From my parents I inherited a number of energy equities.

I have an interest based bias towards fossil fuels, but I can assure you that your conclusion regarding fossil fuel is in error regarding:
  1. what is beneficial for mankind
  2. what is advantageous for the poor &
  3. what is advantageous for developing countries
There is a plethora of information about research, innovation, & documentation on the net concerning these matters.

Btw this morning, I noticed a thematic investing report from Merrill Lynch that is relevant to our discussion, & I will share the following from that report dated 12-12-17:

The Clean Revolution – Global Climate Change Primer Picks

Extreme weather is recognized as the #1 global risk today, with climate change acting as the ultimate risk multiplier. The 16 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century and 2017 is on track to be the 41st consecutive year where global temperatures are above 20th century average. Extreme weather now covers 10-12% of the globe vs. 0.2% during 1951-1980, with the frequency and severity of heat waves, hurricanes, floods, and droughts intensifying. In order to maintain the 2°C warming trajectory, seen as the threshold of catastrophic climate change, carbon emissions must peak by 2020, and rapidly fall by c50% by 2050.

Cleantech: #1 energy investment opportunity of our time. Disruptive technologies are transforming every sector including climate mitigation, where tech-enabled tools are helping to solve climate challenges at an unprecedented pace. Green technology has the potential to deliver 30–40 GtCO2e of emissions reductions annually by 2030E, which is more than double the emissions gap for the 2°C trajectory. Renewables and energy efficiency can move us over 80% of the way towards a safer 2°C warming. Clean energy can provide for 70-80% of cumulative power capacity additions through 2040, by which time 3/4 of generation could be coming from low-carbon sources. New paradigms are emerging, with some of the fastest growth areas being transport and the adoption of the “ACES” (autonomous, connected, electric, shared vehicles) and “smart cities” (integrated approach to renewables, efficiency, electrification, ACES, and tech-enabled analytics).

Exhibit 2: Climate risks, extreme events and related impacts in 2017
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)was
Source: World Meteorological Organization 2017

Exhibit 1: Land & ocean temperature percentiles as at September 2017
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source: NOAA 2017
 
Our temp record only started at the end of a mini ice age (Dalton Minimum).
AGW or not, our trend line on temp will have a positive slope, which means we will be regularly setting new records on our cherry picked timescale.

Not sure how a marketing speal from a company making money off Climate Alarmism is relevant. Though I would agree there is money to be made in Stocks by predicting changes in alarmism and how it impacts perception of energy stocks.
 
A Bank of America Merrill Lynch Wealth Management research department report is hardly a “marketing speal from a company making money off Climate Alarmism.” That’s a ridiculously ignorant statement.
 
HCTC said:
A Bank of America Merrill Lynch Wealth Management research department report is hardly a “marketing speal from a company making money off Climate Alarmism.” That’s a ridiculously ignorant statement.
Click to expand...
YES, it is a marketing spiel by a company that want’s to manage your money for you.

Anytime someone is pitching you on why you should hire them, it’s a marketing spiel.
Marketing pitches are inherently biased, to sell their product.
 
Last edited:
But it’s not where you imagine.
I spent decades working in corporate marketing.
 
Sounds as if Trump is going to downgrade the National Security threat level,
shifting Military focus to problems more actionable.
 
HCTC said:
I have an interest based bias towards fossil fuels, but I can assure you that your conclusion regarding fossil fuel is in error regarding:

what is beneficial for mankind
what is advantageous for the poor &
what is advantageous for developing countries
Click to expand...
A meaningful argument does not appeal to one’s own authority as decisive. Having a father who works in the energy sector does not make his son an expert. I respect your opinion but it is only your opinion. We disagree as do experts in the field.
 
One could argue that a millennial might have feelings of guilt that they prospered on the back of dirty carbon fuels.
Millennials were heavily indoctrinated in the evils of fossil fuels.
 
My purpose in sharing my background was not to establish authority, but rather to demonstrate that personally I have reaped benefit and advantage as a result of the fossil fuel industry; that I have an interest-based bias in favor of fossil fuels. And yet we disagree regarding:
  1. what is beneficial for mankind
  2. what is advantageous for the poor &
  3. what is advantageous for developing countries
 
I don’t know anyone that disagrees with the 3rd world benefits greatly from cheap fossil fuels vs more expensive ‘green’ fuel sources.
 
Theo520 said:
What’s odd is how they chose the temp during the Dalton Minimum (little ice age, low sunspots) to represent the ideal temp of the globe
Click to expand...
If the claimed CO2 levels at that time were what they claim they were, we narrowly escaped extinction of all plant life.
 
The sea level has not REALLY risen.

They say it has, but then when the data is examined closely, the sea level is basically the same. You’re looking at thousandths of an inch, which is not any kind of significant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top