Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

[4elise]

“Climate change” and “global warming” are hotly debated in the scientific community. There is legitimate academic dissent. It is far from settled as to causes and effects.

I’ve stated this before - and for some reason I feel compelled to say it again — even though I think that you won’t believe it!! This is what I understand to be true:

There is NO published scientific data that contradicts human-influenced climate change in ANY peer-reviewed journal, meaning that the research has been thoroughly scrutinized by fellow scientists for its accuracy. Just because a paper is “published”, doesn’t mean that its been published through one of these rigorous journal procedures.

Therefore if anyone simply says that they have published scientific proof, it must be in a peer-reviewed publication in order to be taken seriously, plus the board of reviewers must be from a diverse source and not a “stacked” jury.

You have drawn a different conclusion from what you’ve read and have come to believe - I respect you and hope you return the favor - — - those who are skeptics of the human-influenced climate change seem to believe that they see someone trying to stack the deck of information for personal gain - on the other hand - I see those influencing the skeptics as doing the same (giant multinational corporations who don’t want any change that will impact their bottom line) - so am guessing there will be no movement between us on these issues - Peace -

 

[po18guy]

I’ve stated this before - and for some reason I feel compelled to say it again — even though I think that you won’t believe it!! This is what I understand to be true:

There is NO published scientific data that contradicts human-influenced climate change in ANY peer-reviewed journal, meaning that the research has been thoroughly scrutinized by fellow scientists for its accuracy. Just because a paper is “published”, doesn’t mean that its been published through one of these rigorous journal procedures.

Therefore if anyone simply says that they have published scientific proof, it must be in a peer-reviewed publication in order to be taken seriously, plus the board of reviewers must be from a diverse source and not a “stacked” jury.

You have drawn a different conclusion from what you’ve read and have come to believe - I respect you and hope you return the favor - — - those who are skeptics of the human-influenced climate change seem to believe that they see someone trying to stack the deck of information for personal gain - on the other hand - I see those influencing the skeptics as doing the same (giant multinational corporations who don’t want any change that will impact their bottom line) - so am guessing there will be no movement between us on these issues - Peace -

We are a media and panic-driven society. Just look at the swine flu situation. As to man-made climate change, Mount Pinatubo’s eruption reportedly released more Co2 than all of man’s collective activity. What can/should we do about volcanoes? Worry? Christ commanded us not to.

We can be good stewards of the earth, loving first the Creator and then all of creation. After that, we can trust Him for that which is good.

 

[Ender]

What isn’t speculation is that IF sea levels rise many of the world’s poor will be displaced.
True - the speculation is in the assumption that sea levels will rise. The evidence does not seem to support this.

What isn’t speculation is that IF global warming trends continue SOMETHING needs to be done about the availability and potability of water for the world’s poor.
The poor have those problems now and people have been trying to address them for decades. It’s not clear that global warming will make this worse.

What isn’t speculation is that diseases like malaria are on the rise due to changes already taking place
I agree that this isn’t speculation; this one is simply false. I wonder if you know why malaria is still such a big problem in the world when it had been nearly eradicated forty years ago. This came about because of the hysterical call to do something to save the world from the harmful effects of DDT. Thus DDT became a banned substance and the brown pelican population was restored. People began dying by the thousands again as malaria came back … but we did save the pelicans.

So - I guess if you don’t believe it is happening OR that - IF IT IS - you can do anything to stop it … the issue lies in dealing with the needs of the poor ------- this really has been the point I’ve tried to make -
Actually “global warming” has nothing to do with dealing with the needs of the poor, it has to do with the determining whether man is responsible, what, if anything, can be done to reduce or reverse the warming, and determining whether more warming will actually be harmful.

SINCE I believe, having done a lot of reading too, and believe what the vast majority of those involved in the science do as well that:
This is another claim with no basis in fact: the vast majority of the scientists involved do not believe in anthropogenic warming. I suspect that the majority are in fact undecided.

THEREFORE I am compelled to do something about it personally and in every other way I can as a person of faith ----
If you take it on faith that man is responsible then your response is sensible. For many of us, the science is far from settled and this is no more a moral question than deciding in Galileo’s time whether the sun circled the earth or the earth went around the sun. One position was right but neither position was immoral.

My Catholic faith compels me to consider my actions in light of the needs of the most vulnerable - not ONLY the unborn, but the poor of the world.
It is not about helping the poor - no one disputes that this should be done. It is entirely about whether man is responsible for global warming and can whether he can affect future climate changes - and that is not a moral question.

Ender

 

[Trader]

Actually “global warming” has nothing to do with dealing with the needs of the poor, it has to do with the determining whether man is responsible, what, if anything, can be done to reduce or reverse the warming, and determining whether more warming will actually be harmful.

An excellent response. I would also add, determining whether the cost of the proposed solution is proportional to good to be accomplished.

The real issue of justice here is how to real pain can be inflicted on societies when the benefits are extremely speculative.

 

[Ender]

Take a look at the site for the Catholic Coalition for Climate Change, of which the USCCB is one of the sponsors - if you are open to the possibility that you are wrong - the moral issue is the impact climate change, as well as any approach to address the issue, will have on the most vulnerable - the poor - and NOT just the poor of the United States - this is the moral issue.

On what point do you think I am wrong? Please don’t respond with some vague phrase like “climate change”, be specific. Let’s assume that additional warming will hurt the poor: what is the moral choice before me? Helping the poor? No one is suggesting that we shouldn’t. Are you saying that it is immoral to disbelieve that man has caused the warming? Is it now a sin to be mistaken on the science involved?

I went to the source you suggested and found this:

The president and Congress are making similar proposals at the national level, setting off a major debate over how best to respond to the complexities of climate change.

So, which is the immoral side of the debate? I appear to be on a different side of the debate on how best to respond from you … is it a sin for me to hold my position? It appears to be you who believes that no debate is necessary.

In a debate dominated by environmental groups, scientists and alternative energy entrepreneurs on the one hand, and by utilities, agribusiness, coal and oil companies and others with vested interests on the other hand …

This is an intellectually dishonest statement that implies that those who dispute the theory of AGW are dishonest, greedy, and selfish while those pushing the theory all wear white hats and love puppies. Your source is not very impressive.

Ender

 

[Calliso]

civil discourse would be good. as to my theory it would be just that. as to the ice, i dont conceede just yet that there is less.

iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Up_Over_4.7%25_Since_1980.htm

iceagenow.com/We_overlooked_193000_square_miles_of_ice.htm

iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Growing_at_Fastest_Rate_in_Recorded_History.htm

iceagenow.com/Climate_change_chicanery.htm

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

I thought I would address these.

First the glacier one…most glaciers are actually receding… skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
grist.org/article/but-the-glaciers-are-not-melting

As for the second link well yes Antartic sea ice is increasing. But it is a mistake to think that because of that it disproves global warming. Things aren;t quite so simple.
This might help explain things. skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

The next link talks about a mistake the national snow and ice data center made.

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html But I think the important part is this **The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data. ** So in other words this mistake really changes littlle to nothing.

As for the next link umm it was an la nina year so yes it was a little cooler then some recent previous years. Also it;s not just area that matters but also thickness and we are losing a lot of the thick muti year ice and are being left with thinner younger ice and is more prone to melting. nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

Next link I found this comment… realclimate.org/index.php?p=594#comment-98527

However, the Fram , Nansen’s ship was trapped by ice further southof 80 degrees, North of Siberia in 1894, eventually, Nansen beset and bored, took the said kayak as a sledge and tried to ski to the Pole , and was unsuccessful. The Fram was stuck on the Arctic Ocean ice for almost 3 years mostly exactly where there is open water now!

As for the last link.harryrclarke.com/2009/04/18/propaganda-scepticism-toward-climate-science/

aussmc.org/EastAntarcticApr09.php

Also seems the article confuses land ice and sea ice. skepticalscience.com/How-to-cherry-pick-your-way-to-Antarctic-land-ice-gain.html

So there we go I believe I have addressed all these points!

 

[4elise]

On what point do you think I am wrong? Please don’t respond with some vague phrase like “climate change”, be specific. Let’s assume that additional warming will hurt the poor: what is the moral choice before me? Helping the poor? No one is suggesting that we shouldn’t. Are you saying that it is immoral to disbelieve that man has caused the warming? Is it now a sin to be mistaken on the science involved?

I went to the source you suggested and found this:

The president and Congress are making similar proposals at the national level, setting off a major debate over how best to respond to the complexities of climate change.

So, which is the immoral side of the debate? I appear to be on a different side of the debate on how best to respond from you … is it a sin for me to hold my position? It appears to be you who believes that no debate is necessary.

In a debate dominated by environmental groups, scientists and alternative energy entrepreneurs on the one hand, and by utilities, agribusiness, coal and oil companies and others with vested interests on the other hand …

This is an intellectually dishonest statement that implies that those who dispute the theory of AGW are dishonest, greedy, and selfish while those pushing the theory all wear white hats and love puppies. Your source is not very impressive.

Ender

Dear Ender - I disagree with you. You disagree with me - I have tried very hard to be appropriate in all my responses with you and others - I don’t think we are going to move each other so I will respectfully refrain from responding to your posts any more - you don’t like my sources - so we’ll leave it at that - peace

 

[Ender]

Dear Ender - I disagree with you. You disagree with me - I have tried very hard to be appropriate in all my responses with you and others - I don’t think we are going to move each other so I will respectfully refrain from responding to your posts any more - you don’t like my sources - so we’ll leave it at that - peace

Since 4elise has said she won’t respond any more I’ll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.

For the purposes of this discussion it really doesn’t matter which side is eventually proven correct; what is at issue is whether it is immoral to … I don’t know what. I am trying to get someone to explain where the moral choice lies. I don’t believe that there is any moral question involved nor do I believe anyone can point to something that rises to that level. The claim has been made that there is a serious moral issue involved with climate change and I would like to see someone try to defend that position.

Ender

 

[cathybramble]

Since 4elise has said she won’t respond any more I’ll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.

For the purposes of this discussion it really doesn’t matter which side is eventually proven correct; what is at issue is whether it is immoral to … I don’t know what. I am trying to get someone to explain where the moral choice lies. I don’t believe that there is any moral question involved nor do I believe anyone can point to something that rises to that level. The claim has been made that there is a serious moral issue involved with climate change and I would like to see someone try to defend that position.

Ender

i would like to know why we have to prove man-made global climate change, before we make stewardship a moral issue. we were given that responsibility from the beginning, and we are failing miserably at it. it is a moral issue, period, it was a directive from God to take care of creation.

someone in this thread said we should first love God, and then creation. i would like to know how it is possible to love God and wantonly destroy His creation as we do.

here’s ya something to chew on, from and article on the US conference of catholic bishops web site:

“Here is the truth about the Original Sin: humankind is relentlessly destructive. The human imagination is so diseased by sin that we defeat our own interests time and time again. We have depleted the fisheries from which we eat, poisoned the rivers from which we drink, and fouled even the air we breathe. Worst of all, we live denying these facts, which gives the full measure of our sinfulness. In this sinful denial, people could run so many cattle over vast areas of grass that they destroy the grass. We could cut down so many trees that we deforest our own woods.”

usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/background/articles/ecological.shtml

and here is what the pope said only last year:

““The brutal consumption of Creation begins where God is not, where matter is henceforth only material for us, where we ourselves are the ultimate demand, where the whole is merely our property and we consume it for ourselves alone…I think, therefore, that true and effective initiatives to prevent the waste and destruction of Creation can be implemented and developed, understood and lived, only where Creation is considered as beginning with God.”
-Pope Benedict XVI, August 2008”

 

[JimG]

Good stewardship of the earth—yes. But what does it mean? Is it more moral to use horses than cars for transportation? Is it more moral to live in a high population density area such as Manhattan with public transportation than it is to live in a rural area that requires driving long distances? Is living in Kansas less moral than living in NYC? Are windmills for power generation more moral than gas or coal fired plants?

Was the Neolithic agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago when we switched from hunting and gathering to settled farming—was that bad stewardship? Is farming one acre more moral farming 500 acres? Is keeping 10 cows better than owning a cattle ranch?

Somewhere I saw two identical photos of a particular rural landscape taken about 100 years apart. The more recent one showed more trees, because more trees were planted—we didn’t do replanting 100 years ago.

And what is meant by human beings “destroying God’s creation?” Did the industrial revolution destroy God’s creation, but meteor strikes and volcano eruptions and hurricanes and tidal waves don’t? Do superhighways destroy God’s creation but dirt roads don’t? Does building a water wheel not destroy God’s creation, but building Hoover Dam does?

It used to be that buffalo were a protected species. Because they were protected, nobody had an interest in them or an incentive to keep them. Their population dwindled. Now they are no longer a protected species—we breed them and have buffalo ranching and serve buffalo steaks at Ted’s Steakhouse—and now they are a thriving species because there is an incentive to take care of them.

Is it required to protect baby seals and turtle eggs but not baby humans? After all, our entire national product, every bit of our Gross National Product—is produced by human beings providing goods and services. Human beings are a renewable and productive asset, perhaps the only part of God’s creation which is both productive and renewable.

 

[cathybramble]

Good stewardship of the earth—yes. But what does it mean? Is it more moral to use horses than cars for transportation? Is it more moral to live in a high population density area such as Manhattan with public transportation than it is to live in a rural area that requires driving long distances? Is living in Kansas less moral than living in NYC? Are windmills for power generation more moral than gas or coal fired plants?

Was the Neolithic agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago when we switched from hunting and gathering to settled farming—was that bad stewardship? Is farming one acre more moral farming 500 acres? Is keeping 10 cows better than owning a cattle ranch?

Somewhere I saw two identical photos of a particular rural landscape taken about 100 years apart. The more recent one showed more trees, because more trees were planted—we didn’t do replanting 100 years ago.

And what is meant by human beings “destroying God’s creation?” Did the industrial revolution destroy God’s creation, but meteor strikes and volcano eruptions and hurricanes and tidal waves don’t? Do superhighways destroy God’s creation but dirt roads don’t? Does building a water wheel not destroy God’s creation, but building Hoover Dam does?

It used to be that buffalo were a protected species. Because they were protected, nobody had an interest in them or an incentive to keep them. Their population dwindled. Now they are no longer a protected species—we breed them and have buffalo ranching and serve buffalo steaks at Ted’s Steakhouse—and now they are a thriving species because there is an incentive to take care of them.

Is it required to protect baby seals and turtle eggs but not baby humans? After all, our entire national product, every bit of our Gross National Product—is produced by human beings providing goods and services. Human beings are a renewable and productive asset, perhaps the only part of God’s creation which is both productive and renewable.

are you saying you don’t know what good stewardship vs. environmental destruction is? maybe you should spend some time researching this. as far as i know there is no “one” answer to any of those questions you ask.

i’m also wondering how it is that buffalo came to be protected if no one was interested in them. obviously someone was interested in them enough to protect them. of course, failing to monitor their numbers and keep them healthy in the wild was not the best stewardship, but it’s interesting how you bring in raising them for slaughter as a solution, rather than admitting that we didn’t take proper care of them while they were wild. are we so selfish that we have to profit from them in order to care about them? that’s pretty sad.

and i have no idea why you pose a dichotomy between protecting sea turtles and humans. if we protect the turtles, will there be more abortions? if we extinct another species, will abortion stop? the problem isn’t about what to protect, but to deal with the destructiveness that necessitates their protection. humankind was directed by God to protect them both. we need to do it as best we can, and if we don’t, we are disobeying God – it’s really very simple.

 

[JimG]

Species go extinct all the time. I don’t think God directed us to protect every species. My point about the buffalo is that as long as they were a free ranging ‘protected’ species, what reason was there to have an interest in them? How many cows would there be if we had no interest in dairy farming or ranching?

Environmental ‘destruction’ occurs naturally as well. Obviously the environment changes constantly, and I wouldn’t want to try to preserve it in a sort of static condition. Nature itself wouldn’t allow that. I’m glad we didn’t preserve the dinosaurs, but of course we weren’t around then to protect them in any case.

And if someday we decide to colonize the moon or other planets, we may have to terraform them, which entail ‘environmental destruction’ of their existing environment. But that might be a good thing.

 

[JimG]

Here’s John Stossel on how to protect endangered species: “Let’s eat them.” You can see his analysis in the video.

Or the same video here.

 

[maggiemay2u]

There as many scientific voices calling it one way as there are calling it the other way.

I ain’t no scientist. I’m just a marginally intelligent being who recognizes massive climate change on this puny planet as cyclical. We are unearthing skeletal remains of prehistoric marine life embedded in mountaintops…that tells me sumpin’ is afoot greater than flatulent cows.

IMHO, we are all called to use God’s earth in a respectful way, but to not put it above the last and most god-like of all His creations.

 

[cathybramble]

Species go extinct all the time. I don’t think God directed us to protect every species. My point about the buffalo is that as long as they were a free ranging ‘protected’ species, what reason was there to have an interest in them? How many cows would there be if we had no interest in dairy farming or ranching?

Environmental ‘destruction’ occurs naturally as well. Obviously the environment changes constantly, and I wouldn’t want to try to preserve it in a sort of static condition. Nature itself wouldn’t allow that. I’m glad we didn’t preserve the dinosaurs, but of course we weren’t around then to protect them in any case.

And if someday we decide to colonize the moon or other planets, we may have to terraform them, which entail ‘environmental destruction’ of their existing environment. But that might be a good thing.

God called all of His creation “good” … who are we to pick and choose which ones are worthy of our protection? i think that’s a little arrogant.

i think you still don’t get what it means to be a good “steward” of something. what nature and the weather and meteorites and volcanoes do… all beyond our control. dumping toxic waste from our over-consuming society into rivers and streams and killing millions of fish… very much within our control. so it is wrong for us to do it, and hence a moral issue.

this isn’t about what we have to destroy if we start colonizing the moon or whatever (if we take care of the earth, maybe we can just live here instead anyway)… it’s about taking care of what we have because God created it and put us in charge of its well-being. not some of it. not the things we can profit from, or what we’re “interested” in or what seems “valuable” to us at the time… all of it. to ignore that duty is disobedience to God. period.

 

[JimG]

I seem to recall that God gave us the animals and plants to eat.

 

[cathybramble]

I seem to recall that God gave us the animals and plants to eat.

he gave us permission to eat animals but nowhere said it was okay to make them suffer unnecessarily or to extinct them through excessive consumption. the catechism bears this out. in most places in the western world, we actually don’t need to eat meat at all. there is no directive from God that we must eat animals, they were originally created as our helpmates and companions. having permission to eat them is not carte blanche to abuse them and destroy the environment with factory farms… we are never excused from being stewards of the earth.

 

[mapleoak]

Since 4elise has said she won’t respond any more I’ll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.

In order to claim that this theory is a moral issue (I am assuming use of the term moral issue in this thread means that not doing something to stop global warming is immoral), it needs to be satisfactorily illustrated that an earth with a changing climate is bad and harms poor people. That is a rather hefty postulate to support. If the climate gets warmer and causes poor people to die, what is to say that if the climate gets cooler, poor people will not also likely die as well? For that matter, is there reason to believe that if the climate were to remain stationary, that it will preserve the lives of the poor?
Would it then be moral to blindly perform actions in an attempt to influence the climate one way or the other, especially if while doing so ignoring consideration of those actions which simultaneously affect the poor in more direct, real, and concrete ways? For example taxing fuel usage or some such in a nebulous and inconclusive attempt to cool the earth in order to save the lives of poor people, while at same time such an action has a very real an detrimental effect on the livelihoods of the poor who can no longer afford transportation.

 

[cathybramble]

In order to claim that this theory is a moral issue (I am assuming use of the term moral issue in this thread means that not doing something to stop global warming is immoral), it needs to be satisfactorily illustrated that an earth with a changing climate is bad and harms poor people. That is a rather hefty postulate to support. If the climate gets warmer and causes poor people to die, what is to say that if the climate gets cooler, poor people will not also likely die as well? For that matter, is there reason to believe that if the climate were to remain stationary, that it will preserve the lives of the poor?
Would it then be moral to blindly perform actions in an attempt to influence the climate one way or the other, especially if while doing so ignoring consideration of those actions which simultaneously affect the poor in more direct, real, and concrete ways? For example taxing fuel usage or some such in a nebulous and inconclusive attempt to cool the earth in order to save the lives of poor people, while at same time such an action has a very real an detrimental effect on the livelihoods of the poor who can no longer afford transportation.

failing to be good stewards of God’s creation (including its inhabitants) is a moral issue whether we cause global warming or not. if our destruction of the environment harms other people, we are in an even worse moral position.

 

[JimG]

failing to be good stewards of God’s creation (including its inhabitants) is a moral issue whether we cause global warming or not. if our destruction of the environment harms other people, we are in an even worse moral position.

I guess it all comes down to what constitutes “destruction of the environment,” and that has to be decided on a case by case basis, as a matter of prudential judgement.

Discharging sewage into a clean river is pretty destructive of the environment.
Building a subdivision of homes destroys the existing environment but provides homes for people. Sounds like a good tradeoff.

Building just one home in a rural area surrounded by acres of natural land is less destructive of the environment but less efficient use of resources.

Banning DDT because of the harm it would do to certain species helped preserve those species, but resulted in a re-outbreak of malaria in humans, because we were no longer spraying the mosquito populations with DDT.

Large scale attempts at global climate change seem doomed to fail as long as most other countries wish to continue the process of economic development, as they do. Who are we to tell China, or Vietnam or any other country that they are forbidden to use coal and oil to continue their economic development?

Hardly any instance of human activity, either to protect the environment, or to use or destroy the environment, is without unforseen consequences.

The “environment” changes with time, and in most cases humans have minimal control over it. Actually, humans are part of the environment. So let’s just carefully consider the possible consequences of our actions, whether we consider them to be pro-environment or not.