Do you believe in global warming?

[MidnightSun12]

Interesting post…But I am a person who believes in “Global Warming” and also believes in the Church’s pro-life teachings. I don’t see that there is any conflict between the two things.

The people and groups that you quote above, are positing a certain specific cause for the observed effect. One can certainly register the effect (the world is gradually getting warmer) and yet deny the validity of some proposed causation / solution.

Personally it is my view that the warmup is due largely to natural causes such as a “wobble” in the rotation of the earth. Like a top that spins very straight but then begins to wobble a bit as it slows down. This idea is not a new one and is supported by the cyclic aspect of the ice ages over time.
Human activity may have some effect and it is good that we examine this. But “population control” (at least by artificial means) is not as important as reducing our overall “carbon footprint”.

Thanks for the reply.

I think if climate change is a result of human activity, it must then be a result of human sinfulness. I am a firm believer that all of the human-instituted harm in the world is a result of sin, over-population simply doesn’t fit with this understanding (if anything, the world population is actually much lower then where God wants it to be because of the billion-plus chemical and surgical abortions that have occured over the past 50 years). That said, I do think that gluttony of natural resources and greed on behalf of the people in the world (myself included) could be something that contributes to certain environmental problems. God never gives us more then we can handle, but if we choose to sin then there’s problems.

 

[EasterJoy]

I honestly don’t know whether it is warming or not. I do know, however, that there are some really nasty groups behind the global warming movement and population control via abortion and contraception is a very real aspect of the politics and science of this movement:

"We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming…on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one child is it."

• Ted Turner (Chairman of UN Foundation Board of Directors)

A quote from the United Nations Population Fund:

"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports."

This is a serious problem for any faithful Catholic who supports climate change. The views expressed above are simply not compatible with a sound Catholic faith that clearly tells us that every human being is a blessing, not a plague. I also doubt that it is morally possible for a Catholic to support many climate change charities or politicians since their support for contraception and abortion are almost unequivical.

I guess if I was dating somebody who was pro-climate change, it would give me cause for concern. I would definitely want to know a lot more about their views on the Church’s pro-life teachings and whether they strive to put God first in their life or if they are willing to commit mortal sin by voting for pro-death politicians to politically support their views on climate change.

Are you saying that people cannot value human life and the viability of the planet at the same time? I hope you don’t assume the converse, let’s just say that.

If you are saying, though, that no disaster can make an every-man-for-himself mindset legitimate, that somehow human beings will be worth less if something human beings do needs to be curbed for the good of all, then I’m behind that. The wrong-headed “what we have here is too many human beings” instead of “what we have here is an unsustainable lifestyle” is way too common.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Are you saying that people cannot value human life and the viability of the planet at the same time? I hope you don’t assume the converse, let’s just say that.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to avoid pollution by improving efficiency and reducing one’s personal consumption, etc… The contrary, I think making do with less out of love for God and our neighbour is actually a virtuous quality that we see amoung the Saints.

That said, if a potential spouse is willing to disregard infallible Church teaching that says that contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil in order to (for example) support a political party that she percieves to be “better for the environment”, that’s a very different story and probably a dealbreaker for me.

The latter is a very real aspect of the climate change movement.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to avoid pollution by improving efficiency and reducing one’s personal consumption, etc… The contrary, I think making do with less out of love for God and our neighbour is actually a virtuous quality that we see amoung the Saints.

That said, if a potential spouse is willing to disregard infallible Church teaching that says that contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil in order to (for example) support a political party that she percieves to be “better for the environment”, that’s a very different story and probably a dealbreaker for me.

The latter is a very real aspect of the climate change movement.

This.

There are plenty of people who don’t believe a thing science ever says who don’t believe there’s a thing wrong with abortion or euthanasia, either. They just don’t want anybody telling them anything.

 

[Trishie]

"We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming…on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one child is it."

• Ted Turner (Chairman of UN Foundation Board of Directors)

A quote from the United Nations Population Fund:

"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports."

Do these ‘expert’ statements reflect inaccurate and sloppy thinking and communication
in proclaiming that the number of human beings is the “problem”…
or should their interpretation be that the prevailing way we are accustomed to live in modern times,
in a highly industrial and* wasteful* way, and without much practical respect for God’s world and its resources is the issue that needs addressing?

They may not interpret the issue thus, but should they?

Certainly, every human person is a unique child of God, an irreplaceable treasure

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the reply.

I think if climate change is a result of human activity, it must then be a result of human sinfulness. I am a firm believer that all of the human-instituted harm in the world is a result of sin, over-population simply doesn’t fit with this understanding (if anything, the world population is actually much lower then where God wants it to be because of the billion-plus chemical and surgical abortions that have occured over the past 50 years). That said, I do think that gluttony of natural resources and greed on behalf of the people in the world (myself included) could be something that contributes to certain environmental problems. God never gives us more then we can handle, but if we choose to sin then there’s problems.

I agree with this. Gluttony and greed are certainly aspects of the problem.

Peace
James

 

[AllSeasons]

Here are my own thoughts:

1. 
   *]Yes, I do believe the world is getting warmer. This is based on measurable, empirical evidence.
   *]Are humans causing it? This one is tough to prove conclusively. However, all the evidence I’ve seen is pointing to this theory. Regardless, I don’t think releasing all the harmless chemicals into the atmosphere can be a good thing. God tasked us to be good stewards of the earth, and I don’t think pollution helps.
   *]Does it tell me something about a person? Of course it does. I don’t think we should judge, but it’s certainly very telling of a person’s political leanings, which may correlate with other views, as well.
   *]Now, this one is tricky. The main sticking point for me is what I want passed on to my future children. I’m open to letting them make up their own minds about things, but I do want to point them in the right direction. Parents are the children’s first educators, and what you teach them has lasting effects for the rest of their lives.
   
   OK, I’m off my pedestal.

 

[SamH]

I believe the earth warms and cools. Currently the earth is still “recovering” from the mini ice age. Comparing todays temps to temps 100 years ago (less than one degree difference) only reflects that slow recovery. Think of it - during the middle ages the earth was much warmer than today. England was know for its vineyards. Scandinavia was the breadbasket of Europe, Greenland was green and supported farming colonies.

The CO2 claims just don’t measure up scientifically, doubling the amount of a trace gas that results in it still being a trace gas results in minute changes that are for the most part unmeasurable.

 

[lynnvinc]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 
   I guess it’s not so much a matter of “believe” as accepting what the scientists (the real climate scientists, not the fakexperts) claim, understanding that they require 95% confidence (.05 on the null) before they make claims, and that JPII and I, realizing this was a very serious problems & not needing such extreme proof, started mitigating back in 1990 & tried to get others to do likewise, 5 years before the science reached 95% confidence on anthropogenic climate change. Plus I had already learned about the natural greenhouse effect back in the 60s (I was an avid science reader), so it really wasn’t too difficult for me to grasp anthropogenic global warming when it became a big story in the 1980s.
   
   My stance is hope for the best (that the scientists are wrong, since there is that 3% chance that they are wrong), but expect the worst and set out to mitigate it in my own life as best as possible. That’s the prudent and Christian thing to do, as the U.S. Bishops have said. I’ve been trying to persuades others to do likewise over the past 22 years, but it’s like banging my head against a brick wall…but I’ll continue to bang away till my last breathe, then operate (hopefully) from heaven to do good on earth.
   
   So what’s the damage in that? Well, I’ve saved many $1000s over the decades by lowering our GHG emissions (and concomitant pollution) by over 60%, without lowering our living standard, even improving it nicely. Our $6 low-flow showerhead with off/on soap-up switch along has saved us $2200 in water and energy to heat it (note: nearly every product has a GHG-emissions component in its resource extraction, shipping, processing, manufacturing, selling, shopping, disposal).
   
   We finally got a Chevy Volt last year to plug into our 100% wind-powered Green Mountain electricity, after our old '98 car was leaking oil from all sorts of places & would cost much more to fix than what it was worth.
   
   The Volt’s a really great luxury car by our standards (I had wanted an EV for 22 years and would have been happy to get one with crank down windows). Knowing it will be our last car, I had initially I assumed it was a big splurge rather than economic investment (price tag fully loaded at $44,000). It was the 2nd time in our 44 years of marriage we bought a new car and the 1st time we financed a car, and we did that mainly bec we bargained the interested down to 2% and were then able to use that money to pay off another loan at 7%. But come to find out after doing an Excel spreadsheet, we’ll be saving money on the Volt! I figure it will pay for the difference between it and the car hubby wanted in 6.5 years (which would have been sooner, expect we only drive about 6000 miles a year). The cost in electricity to go 40 miles in the Volt: $1.23.
   
   Then this year we changed our roof from leaky shakes to an energy efficient composite roofing, and now we can consider putting up solar panels. So I contacted a friend who generates most of his electricity from solar PV panels (and consulted my tax guy): solar will pay for itself in less than 3 years and go on to save us mucho over the years…right at the time we will be retiring. ((That’s mainly bec our particular electricity base provider, AEP, gives a nice rebate; without that rebate plus the federal tax credit, it would actually take 12 years to pay for itself – still not a bad deal & safer than the stock market and much better than bank interest.))
   
   So there you have it. It is economically and environmentally crazy not to mitigate climate change and the wide range of other problems that get mitigated by mitigating CC, whatever level of your acceptance or rejection of climate science.
   
   Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be given unto you. Halleluia!

 

[lynnvinc]

…What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

Forgot to answer that one. Bec I’ve been ranting and raving about global warming for decades, my husband assumes everyone accepts it – bec he’s not really tuned into the food fight over it.

However, having grown up in poverty in India he was adamently against doing anything at all that would lower our living standard or cost us much money. When I started putting in CF bulbs he put up a military front at the stove and said he needed good light in the rangehood for his cooking (he’s a great cook), and that he didn’t want a CF bulb there.

Okay, so I put in a 15 watt (=60 watt) to replace the 40 watt incandescent, which gave him more light, and he’s been happy as a clam ever since.

Re our SunFrost frig (a whopping $2700 with shipping from Arcata, CA; but it uses only 10% of the energy of a reg frig…actually 8% of our old clonker it replaced), I presented him with a business plan showing it was a much better investment than other investments. Come to find out it also preserved produce a lot better (cilantro can stay in the frig for a month without deteriorating much), so we’ve saved mucho with veggies not spoiling as much. I figure it paid for the difference between it and a frig (we did need one) within 8 years and paid for itself in 16 years, and has gone on the next 6 years thereafter saving us $$.

The next big tag item was the Volt last year. His heart was set on a Taurus (to replace his beloved one that was dying out), but they don’t make them the same – too big, and the Focus too cramped. I told him we should look at the Chevy Cruz, and when he realized I had manuvered him over to the Volt, he got really mad and said some curse words under his breath, then felt remorse and suddenly caved in (it was actually due to God performing an extreme miracle in response to my manyafter me nagging Him thru frequent prayers for years about EVs). He knew I’d been wanting an EV for decades, and almost joined an EV club to do a conversion, so he said to himself, “let her have it.”

So now I’m presenting him with a business plan for solar…and he’s 99% convinced.

More later…

 

[Mark121359]

No.
No.
Nothing.
Nothing.

Is this some kind of a joke? Why would a belief/non-belief in global warming have anything to do with the “kind” of person someone is? *** I never heard of judging a person on their belief on global warming (Al Gore excepted*** )

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I agree with this. Gluttony and greed are certainly aspects of the problem.

Peace
James

Racism and fear (and sheep-like stupidity) are also aspects of the problem (the global warming supporters are also usually zero-population proponents and their restrictions would not allow third-world nations to develop independent sources of power).

 

[EasterJoy]

If we wanted to make a debate out of it, we’d be throwing around the statements of the National Academy of Sciences and the eighteen American scientific societies that put out a statement through the NAS, or whoever our favorite scientific and moral experts are, but I don’t think that’s the point.

The bigger question is this: What difference does it make that someone with whom you are considering marriage has a very different view than you do on some particular controversial topic?

I’d say the answer includes this:

1. If what they think about anything whatsoever makes them a “different kind of person” in your eyes, well, take that seriously. If you’re not someone who can tolerate that, you’d do everyone a favor to admit it. (I hope it goes without saying that if someone does not accept the teachings of the Church as true, this is usually going to be an issue with someone who does…although some couples do manage harmonious marriages even in that case.)
2. Look more seriously at their core values and how they guide their life. For instance, someone may have all the same ideas you have, but resists letting those views make any substantial difference in how they live their lives. Another may live their lives very much like you, but for quite different reasons. Very often, the latter person will be a better match for you, because they’ll want to live as you do.
3. Always pay attention to whether or not your differences damage your mutual respect for each other’s foundational ability to make decisions. You have to be able to “agree to disagree” without damaging your mutual affection and support. You’re also going to have to give your spouse his or her way once in awhile, or there will be consequences.
4. Ask yourselves what you’re going to teach your children and how you are going to treat each other with your children when you disagree. Can you use it as an opportunity to teach your children how to live in harmony with those you don’t agree with? If you can’t, how will you handle it? If you are going to argue and fight in front of your kids or undermine each other behind each other’s back, that is not going to be good for your children or your marriage.

 

[meltzerboy]

If we wanted to make a debate out of it, we’d be throwing around the statements of the National Academy of Sciences and the eighteen American scientific societies that put out a statement through the NAS, or whoever our favorite scientific and moral experts are, but I don’t think that’s the point.

The bigger question is this: What difference does it make that someone with whom you are considering marriage has a very different view than you do on some particular controversial topic?

I’d say the answer includes this:

1. If what they think about anything whatsoever makes them a “different kind of person” in your eyes, well, take that seriously. If you’re not someone who can tolerate that, you’d do everyone a favor to admit it. (I hope it goes without saying that if someone does not accept the teachings of the Church as true, this is usually going to be an issue with someone who does…although some couples do manage harmonious marriages even in that case.)
2. Look more seriously at their core values and how they guide their life. For instance, someone may have all the same ideas you have, but resists letting those views make any substantial difference in how they live their lives. Another may live their lives very much like you, but for quite different reasons. Very often, the latter person will be a better match for you, because they’ll want to live as you do.
3. Always pay attention to whether or not your differences damage your mutual respect for each other’s foundational ability to make decisions. You have to be able to “agree to disagree” without damaging your mutual affection and support. You’re also going to have to give your spouse his or her way once in awhile, or there will be consequences.
4. Ask yourselves what you’re going to teach your children and how you are going to treat each other with your children when you disagree. Can you use it as an opportunity to teach your children how to live in harmony with those you don’t agree with? If you can’t, how will you handle it? If you are going to argue and fight in front of your kids or undermine each other behind each other’s back, that is not going to be good for your children or your marriage.

I fully agree with this great response, EasterJoy! You would make a terrific counseling or clinical psychologist.

 

[dedo]

1. yes
2. yes
3. The person does not read science or is in denial.
4. Romantic partners do not need to agree on everything. It is a mistake to try to mold someone toward your point of view.

 

[vjnycguy]

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

1. • No, I don’t believe the world is getting warmer. I live in NY… it’s below freezing everyday. I wish it was real because then I’d enjoy living here with warm weather.
   • No, humans are responsible for ripping holes in the o-zone layer. (pollution)
   • They’re smart… that’s what it says about them.
   • They’re smart too

 

[lynnvinc]

What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

In my books it says that person does not care about life on planet earth, or he/she is blocked with some unreasonable fear or ideology, or doesn’t really understand the science or implications.

I’d still try to convince that person that we are harming and killing people thru GW, and it is wrong, and present him/her with good cost-saving measures to mitigate climate change.

I could very easily work with that person as a colleague, and if it were an environmental group, we could find common ground in seeking solutions that not only mitigate climate change, but also many other problems, some of which he/she was concerned about, or approach it from the money-saving angle.

What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?

If I were a young unmarried person now, I personally can’t imagine having a romantic partner who wouldn’t agree with me on basic life issues, and certainly not marrying him. He would have to accept climate science and be into mitigating GW, and would have to be anti-abortion. Life is a non-negotiable in my books. Physical attraction and infatuation, no matter how strong, don’t amount to much over the long haul.

Now it just so happened that I met and married my husband in 1969, well before I was concerned about global warming, and even before abortions were legal…so it wasn’t a topic we discussed (I can’t remember), but I thank God that he is against abortion, accepts climate science, and goes along with us mitigating global warming. I think it would be a minor hell for me if he did not, and I guess God understands I’m such a weakling that he didn’t give me that cross. (We do have plenty of other disagreements, though.)

For you, the global warming issue may or may not be important. If it is highly important, you would have both realized your differences within a few hours of getting to know each other, and the relationship would have fizzled out…unless this is something that became important to you after establishing the relationship.

If global warming is a very serious issue to you, then you need to understand that once people are into GW denial, they do not change that position no matter what (as you can see here on CAF). And, as my husband’s uncle, a parish priest, used to say, you do not marry someone to change them; you have to accept them as they are. (Not that you should ever give up trying to change bad habits, etc. – good luck with that!!)

When selecting a marriage partner, it is best to be compatible on as many things as possible, esp important things. Plenty of marital trials and tribulations (hairshirts and penances) will crop up along the way in the years and decades to come, during which GW will be getting worse & worse, and will lead to serious problems, stresses, and conflicts. There is no need to start out with big areas of disagreement while the choice is still open. Marriage is difficult enough without added problems.

You can do what I did as a young, unmarried woman feeling frustrated I could not find a husband. In those days (pre-women’s-movement), considering I was not Catholic and religous orders were not an option, marriage was the only option for women. So what I did was make a very sincere prayer to God to find me a good husband – then I gave the laundry list of what I wanted in a husband, ending with, “and most importantly it should be someone who leads me to the right religion and brings me closer to You, God.”

Two months later there he was, my special order, exact to specifications, including leading me to the right religion, Catholicism. My Catholic boy! It was so astonishing, a total miracle.

My prayers are with you in your life’s journey.

 

[pete_29]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 1. Yes
   2. No
   3. That they have an opinion.
   4. The same as above

 

[EasterJoy]

• No, I don’t believe the world is getting warmer. I live in NY… it’s below freezing everyday.

Just for the record, those who contend that the average temperature of the entire planet is rising are not implying that the average temperature is rising everywhere, all of the time. That is a common misconception.

 

[Reverie]

Hasn’t the world been thawing out and warming up since the ice age?