Emeraldlady
New member
That is truly an appalling attitude. This dear readers, is the very reason that the Church needs to continue to re-iterate the importance of stewardship and gratitude for gifts God has given into our care.
- Status
Mark121359
Well-known member
I agree. So what does that say about our Church???
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
“Scientists publishing in the field” - there’s the rub! Didja’ notice that?
NOT NOT NOT all applicable scientists. You will not get published if you disagree. That’s progressivism.
Look, I’m old enough to remember when pants were being wet over the “coming ice age”
…and that was 1970.
So this new-age nonsense power grab has no cred with me.
NOT NOT NOT all applicable scientists. You will not get published if you disagree. That’s progressivism.
Look, I’m old enough to remember when pants were being wet over the “coming ice age”
…and that was 1970.
So this new-age nonsense power grab has no cred with me.
po18guy
Well-known member
Our Church has been in a malaise for 60 years. Modernists have great sway, and those who should question them seem to be lacking a spine. Look back through Church history and it is the same - until internal reformation arrives.
When the Church hooks up with “modern” science, just as it did with “modern scripture scholarship” there is trouble brewing.
The Church is not the EPA, even though many - including some Bishops - lately seem to think it is. Like I said, there is much less resistance and criticism if you proclaim the gospel of earth than that of Jesus Christ - which has care of the earth as a sub-set.
It is disordered theology, disordered spirituality.
For my part, I take good care of creation, doing nearly all of the liberal blah blah blah that I have been doing for decades and was taught by my dad.
When the Church hooks up with “modern” science, just as it did with “modern scripture scholarship” there is trouble brewing.
The Church is not the EPA, even though many - including some Bishops - lately seem to think it is. Like I said, there is much less resistance and criticism if you proclaim the gospel of earth than that of Jesus Christ - which has care of the earth as a sub-set.
It is disordered theology, disordered spirituality.
For my part, I take good care of creation, doing nearly all of the liberal blah blah blah that I have been doing for decades and was taught by my dad.
E
Elias
Guest
Just you wait. The doommongers that say the environment will kill everyone in 11 years will look just as silly as the protestants that say the 2nd comming of Jesus is neigh, and they will give the same sorry excuse
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
I am having a hard time deciding whether you are just having some kind of a joke with us, but I suspect you are not. Of course whales have not evolved to know not to eat trash. The burden is on us not to pollute the ocean with trash, not on the whale to know not to eat it.
A quick Google search would tell you that there are vineyards in England and Wales.
I am sorry to fall out with you, but I think that the burden is on you to convince us that the scientists have got it wrong. Are you familiar with ‘The Science of Climate Change’? It is a statement signed jointly by:
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society of Canada
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- French Academy of Sciences
- German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
- Indian National Science Academy
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Turkish Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society
How are you going to convince me that Stephen Hawking also got it wrong? What reason would Professor Hawking have to lie to us about this?
E
Elias
Guest
31,000 scientists also think there is no convincing evidence that climate is affected by human activity. 31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation
You have to remember that there is an agenda that is being pushed by these people that cry out about climate change. Their agenda is population control. They dupe the masses by calling it “sustainable development” but in reality is always been about population control.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...y-reduced-population-to-fight-climate-change/
You have to remember that there is an agenda that is being pushed by these people that cry out about climate change. Their agenda is population control. They dupe the masses by calling it “sustainable development” but in reality is always been about population control.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...y-reduced-population-to-fight-climate-change/
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
Did you actually read the article you linked? It explains that the 31,000 “scientists” are just people who hold (or claim to hold) a minimum of a B.S. degree. The vast majority of those who signed have no connection with the field of climate science at all.
Hasn’t that been debunked as a conspiracy theory?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m sorry, but this is about the sort of thing I’d expect from England in this day and age when it as a country seems to be obsessed with being politically correct.
Obviously if somebody threw trash all over a campground and didn’t pick it up and put it in a trash bag or waste bin, I can see that being a sin, but “have you taken flights unnecessarily”? What does that even mean? The people I know don’t go hopping on a plane like they were calling up Uber. I don’t think anybody does unless they are so rich that they own their own plane.
They should just focus on getting people to go back to Mass and confession and quit coming up with new weird “sins” under every bush.
Obviously if somebody threw trash all over a campground and didn’t pick it up and put it in a trash bag or waste bin, I can see that being a sin, but “have you taken flights unnecessarily”? What does that even mean? The people I know don’t go hopping on a plane like they were calling up Uber. I don’t think anybody does unless they are so rich that they own their own plane.
They should just focus on getting people to go back to Mass and confession and quit coming up with new weird “sins” under every bush.
Last edited:
E
Elias
Guest
Did you miss the part where the UN is pushing abortion in the name of “sustainable development”?
Did you miss the part where those scientists are actively calling for a “significant reduction in population” in order to spare everyone from the evils of the changing climate?
If that doesn’t scream population control I don’t know what does.
But those 31,000 do have a voice and do matter as well. The biology and agriculture ones being pretty important considering they activitly work the land and know more about the land than people that sit in front of computers all day and occasionally go outside.
You have to keep in mind, all this climate hysteria is not a recent thing. This has been pushed on people for a long time. Who can forget this gem from back in the late 80’s
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Guess what, it’s 2019 and we are all still alive and very well fed.
And of course the climate scientists would be pushing climate change as their lively hood depends on it and it serves the whims of the politicians who only use “climate change” as a means to control and tax society more.
Did you miss the part where those scientists are actively calling for a “significant reduction in population” in order to spare everyone from the evils of the changing climate?
If that doesn’t scream population control I don’t know what does.
But those 31,000 do have a voice and do matter as well. The biology and agriculture ones being pretty important considering they activitly work the land and know more about the land than people that sit in front of computers all day and occasionally go outside.
You have to keep in mind, all this climate hysteria is not a recent thing. This has been pushed on people for a long time. Who can forget this gem from back in the late 80’s
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Guess what, it’s 2019 and we are all still alive and very well fed.
And of course the climate scientists would be pushing climate change as their lively hood depends on it and it serves the whims of the politicians who only use “climate change” as a means to control and tax society more.
Emeraldlady
New member
Fireman have traditionally been big anti Greens but I was listening to a spokesman for the Fire Dept. imploring government to recognise and address the very real change in climate that is making it impossible to get on top of bush fires using the tried and true traditional methods. The bush fire response needs a huge injection of money to be prepared for next season and into the future.
O
otjm
Guest
The leading countries contributing excess of carbon dioxide are India and China. China appears to be trying to do something about the matter if for no other reason than that other air pollution has become so bad in some cities that it is clearly causing widespread health problems. However, they have a long way to go.
India seems incapable of addressing the matter in any significant fashion.
People in the United States are constantly acting as though we are the largest source of carbon dioxide excess, but in fact we have been aggressive in reigning in the amount produced. One liberal state, with a liberal governor and legislature decided they were going to attack the matter with major increases in taxes on gasoline and electricity with a 7 year roll-out. The state produces . 0.014% of the carbon emissions in the US; they could not even articulate how much the taxes would actually work to further reduce emissions; but when faced with a major backlash due to the extremely regressive effect on the poor, as well as the damage to businesses (which can relocate), they backed off.
The Amazon has faced massive reductions in trees (read, rain forest); since about 1970, 270,000 square miles give or take several thousands. And while this is not the only loss of forestation, it appears to be the largest loss.
So what? Well, back when, we were taught that trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen; young trees are more effective than older ones.
So progressives want to do something about it? Good luck with that; the Amazon is contained in 9 different countries and each one of them is a sovereign nation.
And while all the progressive blather goes on about SUVs, North America, Europe, and particularly China are moving rapidly to all electric vehicles in the relatively near future.
Not that anyone seems to have much to say as to how anyone will meet the demand for more electricity to charge these vehicles. They will, however, work to reduce the carbon emissions which the woke progressives bemoan so greatly concerning out SUVs.
However, the “sky is falling” mantra makes all sorts of hysterical predictions of the end of viable life on the planet, with less than zero evidence (researching past history going back millennia upon millennia indicate far, far higher average temperatures when a great deal of life was thriving on earth).
India seems incapable of addressing the matter in any significant fashion.
People in the United States are constantly acting as though we are the largest source of carbon dioxide excess, but in fact we have been aggressive in reigning in the amount produced. One liberal state, with a liberal governor and legislature decided they were going to attack the matter with major increases in taxes on gasoline and electricity with a 7 year roll-out. The state produces . 0.014% of the carbon emissions in the US; they could not even articulate how much the taxes would actually work to further reduce emissions; but when faced with a major backlash due to the extremely regressive effect on the poor, as well as the damage to businesses (which can relocate), they backed off.
The Amazon has faced massive reductions in trees (read, rain forest); since about 1970, 270,000 square miles give or take several thousands. And while this is not the only loss of forestation, it appears to be the largest loss.
So what? Well, back when, we were taught that trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen; young trees are more effective than older ones.
So progressives want to do something about it? Good luck with that; the Amazon is contained in 9 different countries and each one of them is a sovereign nation.
And while all the progressive blather goes on about SUVs, North America, Europe, and particularly China are moving rapidly to all electric vehicles in the relatively near future.
Not that anyone seems to have much to say as to how anyone will meet the demand for more electricity to charge these vehicles. They will, however, work to reduce the carbon emissions which the woke progressives bemoan so greatly concerning out SUVs.
However, the “sky is falling” mantra makes all sorts of hysterical predictions of the end of viable life on the planet, with less than zero evidence (researching past history going back millennia upon millennia indicate far, far higher average temperatures when a great deal of life was thriving on earth).
Last edited:
P
poche
Guest
St Augustine when he was youger deliberately stole and wasted some fruit from a mans garden/farm. He said that that wasone of the worst thingshe ever did. He stole the fruit and wasted it rather than eating it.
In the latter part of the 19th century groups of people went out and killed as much buffalo as they could, not because they needed the meat or because they needed the leather. They did it so that the indigenous people would starve.
Those two examples could be considered eco-sins
In the latter part of the 19th century groups of people went out and killed as much buffalo as they could, not because they needed the meat or because they needed the leather. They did it so that the indigenous people would starve.
Those two examples could be considered eco-sins
P
pnewton
Guest
Man, I was in total agreement until I saw this line. I agree with you in fact, but not attitude. In fact, if any Catholic would bother to read Lautatio Si, there is a lot in there about the excessive pollution from third world countries.
How can anything that exists in any quantity be “less than zero?” Math doesn’t work that way. Perhaps accusing other of being hysterical is not best in such a context of imprecision.
P
pnewton
Guest
I hope that no one will take the mistaken approach that just because abortion is a problem in third world countries that those who oppose it here are merely “blathering.” Rather than dividing people by being progressive or conservative, I like to look at those who are capable of reason (on both sides) and those who follow the leader without regard to reason, be it Breitbart or HuffPo; Trump or Bernie/
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Yep, I see a lot of dissent from this (not new) teaching of the Church on CAF. Worse, a lot of people here seem to mock and belittle the Holy Father and bishops for reiterating this traditional teaching. It’s sad and disturbing and can only be motivated by disordered materialism.
O
otjm
Guest
Progressives blather on about SUV’s in the US. I have yet to see any progressive (and there may well be some - but I have not heard a single one as of yet) who has had anything to say about SUV’s in third world countries.
That may be due to a really low ratio of SUV’s to population of the country, or to the population of drivers of that country.
Or it may simply be that the progressives I hear from are “on it” about the US. I don’'t even hear them talking about other “1st world” countries and their SUV’s. In short, I find them to be myopic at best. And I don’t recall Laudato Si having anything to say about SUVs in 3rd world countries; those countries generally manage to provide an excess of carbon emissions without such expensive vehicles - excess use of coal being one of them,
As to the math’ less than zero generally implies negative numbers in the math with which I am familiar; and it is another way of saying that evidence is to the contrary. No, I am not a math major, but I think you get the image of evidence on one side of a point on a graph, and evidence on the other.
I am not interested in tilting with scientists - I am not trained in that either. What I am grousing about is the politics and the political correctness surrounding discussions on climate change. When the only permitted discussion allowed consists of repeating the current mantra, discussion has ceased and parroting has taken over. Case in point: within the last few months Susan Crockett lost her job for challenging the myth that climate change was going to devastate polar bears. She lost her job over the matter (unwise to take on such stalwart icons of truth such as National Geographic in 2017 which posted a picture of an emaciated bear with the caption “this is what climate change looks like” and then changed the caption to read “this is what starvation looks like”). Nor were they alone is such manipulation of truth; the World Wildlife Federation took the polar bear as the iconic “poster child for the impacts of climate change on species”. (continued)
That may be due to a really low ratio of SUV’s to population of the country, or to the population of drivers of that country.
Or it may simply be that the progressives I hear from are “on it” about the US. I don’'t even hear them talking about other “1st world” countries and their SUV’s. In short, I find them to be myopic at best. And I don’t recall Laudato Si having anything to say about SUVs in 3rd world countries; those countries generally manage to provide an excess of carbon emissions without such expensive vehicles - excess use of coal being one of them,
As to the math’ less than zero generally implies negative numbers in the math with which I am familiar; and it is another way of saying that evidence is to the contrary. No, I am not a math major, but I think you get the image of evidence on one side of a point on a graph, and evidence on the other.
I am not interested in tilting with scientists - I am not trained in that either. What I am grousing about is the politics and the political correctness surrounding discussions on climate change. When the only permitted discussion allowed consists of repeating the current mantra, discussion has ceased and parroting has taken over. Case in point: within the last few months Susan Crockett lost her job for challenging the myth that climate change was going to devastate polar bears. She lost her job over the matter (unwise to take on such stalwart icons of truth such as National Geographic in 2017 which posted a picture of an emaciated bear with the caption “this is what climate change looks like” and then changed the caption to read “this is what starvation looks like”). Nor were they alone is such manipulation of truth; the World Wildlife Federation took the polar bear as the iconic “poster child for the impacts of climate change on species”. (continued)
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
(continued)
The truth is that polar bear populations have been stable or increasing, as evidence has been brought forth from other sources. But never mind the truth; if you even suggest that the icon of the “woke” is not as put forth, you are hounded out of your job (she was fired and subsequently hounded within the elite circles), reputation ruined and cast into the category of the Know Nothings and the Truth Deniers, never mind that facts may simply be what you state. Or as one article put it, she was tried by the court of inquisition of the climate change church.
Is climate changing? Climate has been changing since God created the earth. Is man having an impact on climate? Yes; however, to what degree and with what consequences (seems to be AOC said we have 12 years to doomsday) is, or at least should be open to discussion.
However, it is hard to have a discussion with someone who is full tilt emotion. Back to the bears; less ice and warming waters are to their advantage. Why? Because on of their serious food sources is ringed seals, and their population thrives in warmer water.
But never mind the facts; when facts are brought forth, the “woke” start chanting “Heretic! Heretic!” and the Inquisition begins.
The truth is that polar bear populations have been stable or increasing, as evidence has been brought forth from other sources. But never mind the truth; if you even suggest that the icon of the “woke” is not as put forth, you are hounded out of your job (she was fired and subsequently hounded within the elite circles), reputation ruined and cast into the category of the Know Nothings and the Truth Deniers, never mind that facts may simply be what you state. Or as one article put it, she was tried by the court of inquisition of the climate change church.
Is climate changing? Climate has been changing since God created the earth. Is man having an impact on climate? Yes; however, to what degree and with what consequences (seems to be AOC said we have 12 years to doomsday) is, or at least should be open to discussion.
However, it is hard to have a discussion with someone who is full tilt emotion. Back to the bears; less ice and warming waters are to their advantage. Why? Because on of their serious food sources is ringed seals, and their population thrives in warmer water.
But never mind the facts; when facts are brought forth, the “woke” start chanting “Heretic! Heretic!” and the Inquisition begins.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
It’s winter right now, not exactly the optimum time for locally grown fruits and vegetables.
Do we have to confess eating an orange or banana that has been shipped in from Honduras or Florida?
What exactly are these eco-sins that need to be confessed?
The whole thing is honestly just looney.
- Status