Allowing individuals the opportunity to express their own opinion is not at all the same as allowing an organization to determine what will or will not be reported. If the denier side seems over represented to you in a forum where opinions are allowed free expression it may well be an indication that it is because they are under represented in those forums where opinions are controlled.
There has been very little other than opinion here so far from those who dissent from the majority view of AGW (Anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming). Since the Catholic Church accepts the majority scientific view of AGW I would like to see some evidence refuting the science presented.
It is a mistake to believe that “the Catholic Church” has a doctrinal position on any scientific issue. She deals with faith and morals, not with science. Individual clergy may hold personal opinions about what is or is not fact but don’t confuse the prudential choices of individuals with “the Church.”
Given that I’ve made no comments that even hint at a political basis for my comments I don’t know why you would assume my politics are relevant. As for my opinions, like yours, they are based on what I believe to be true.
I have been involved in discussions of the science supporting AGW for years … but not in this thread. My comments here have been pretty much limited to this question: if all the science supports AGW then why has there been so much deceit involved in making that point?
Yet it is not just individual clergy. The Pope and Bishops have established their position since it is linked to morals.
Politics is always a possibility (though maybe not yours) ever since the leaked memo in 1994 from Republican strategist Frank Luntz. He advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue” and “challenge the science” by “recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.”
Good question. I don’t know other than deceit is found everywhere.
There is no moral question involved in determining the scientific basis of AGW. If we believe AGW is true and oppose reasonable mitigation policies that would save the Earth then we have sinned. If we don’t believe AGW is true or if we don’t believe the proposed policies would in any significant way mitigate the effects then opposing them is not sinful. The validity of AGW is a scientific issue not a moral one.
The “reality of climate change” … what exactly does that mean? Climates do change and, whether man made or not, those changes will affect locales differently. Are you assuming from this comment that the Church has pronounced on the scientific validity of both AGW and the proposals to slow or reverse it? I’ll say it again: the Church has no doctrinal position on scientific matters.
If you assume that people oppose AGW mitigation proposals because they are indifferent to the plight of others or to the impacts of their personal choices, this would justify your calling them immoral. If, however, you take a less uncharitable view of their actions you would at worst be justified in calling them mistaken.
None of this is relevant to answering the scientific question: is the theory of AGW correct. If the theory is wrong - or if people reasonably believe it to be wrong - then they are justified in rejecting the proposals to mitigate a problem they believe doesn’t exist.
True, as many on the anti-AGW side have complained for years.
If you are acknowledging that the AGW side has lied, I’ll accept that, but deceit is not supposed to be found in science or the scientific method. It is in fact the claim of science that physical truths are knowable and that if science tells us something is true it is irrational to reject it. That is the entire basis of all of this moral huffing: that the only reason someone could oppose the self-evident truth of AGW is moral depravity, but as I keep asking, if AGW is true why has there been so much deceit in defending it?
The AGW issue is similar to many issues involving opinion and belief. The morality comes into play because we are responsible to have a well formed conscience. We have an obligation to educate ourselves, listen to the Church as well as the scientific community, sift through information and misinformation, then follow our conscience, not just believe or not believe as it seems to suit us. We certainly see this on many social issues. On AGW we have a responsibility to listen to the scientific majority and the guidance of the Church (even though it is not dogma). If we still have a contrary view what is the basis for it? That is what I would like to hear from those who dissent.
It certainly sounds as if that statement takes AGW seriously, believes it is a reality. I think you stated well, “If we believe AGW is true and oppose reasonable mitigation policies that would save the Earth then we have sinned. If we don’t believe AGW is true or if we don’t believe the proposed policies would in any significant way mitigate the effects then opposing them is not sinful.” The Pope an Bishops have expressed belief in AGW. We need to take their belief seriously and not just blow it off without good reason. AGW may not be a doctrinal position but good stewardship of the envirnoment certainly is.
How about mistaken on a moral issue?
Deceit is part of the world we live in (including, I am sorry to say, the Church itself).
“We adults?” Only a small percentage in this country controls 80% of the wealth. Christian values have nothing to do with this. Greed does.All the more reason for Catholics to get on board and propose ethical solutions.
Of course, it is not the number of people so much as the amount of GHGs (and other pollutants) they are emitting. Those favoring extreme pop control measures probably just want more goodies for themselves and their children, without having to actually reduce their own GHGs. My thinking is they are not really environmentalists (which I would define at a minimum as people who themselves are reducing their environmental harm).
Having said that, we can also look at Catholic ways of addressing “population,” such as more Catholics becoming celibate priests, nuns, monks, and hermits. And there is the rhythm method & “absinence makes the heart grow fonder.” I remember reading somewhere about how in the past married Catholics would practice abstinence for the whole of lent (then if a little one were to appear 9 months later after a month during lent, people would know they couldn’t quite keep up the penance.
The important point is that the children are NOT responsible for the environmental problems. We adults are. And each child conceived should be joyfully welcomed into this world. It is not only very evil, but is completely illogical to kill (unborn) children in order to save the world for the children. We will just have to find other ways to accomplish a sustainable environment for all.
Also, when people say they are against medical abortions, but don’t believe AGW is real, I have a very difficult time believing they are sincere about the abortion issue, that they must have some other ulterior motives and don’t really care about life issues. No one would risk life on earth, even if scientists were only 30% confidence AGW is real and dangerous – and first studies on AGW reached 95% confidence in 1995, and the science has just gone on to become more and more robust with proof from many different sources.
How many climate scientists can the denialist harass and threaten with death threats – there are 1000s of scientists and their studies they’d have to attack.
Better to be on the side of prudence (a good old Christian virture) and mitigate AGW, than waste so much time and energy attacking scientists and their studies with fallacious and slanderous claims and character assassination (unless one is connected to the fossil fuel industry, I suppose, and getting big bucks for doing so, and doesn’t believe in God or heaven & hell).
It depends on the industry. They can be short sighted. Profits now.
Fine - that’s what I’ve done. So where is the problem?
This is absolutely untrue as well as completely unscientific. Truth is not something determined by the number of people who believe it.
This too is incorrect. The opinion of the Church on scientific matters - assuming she had one - is not relevant. Given that she has none on this issue the question is moot.
There is justification for claiming my position is wrong - that’s what the whole debate on AGW is about: who is right? - but there is no justification for claiming my position is immoral. Make whatever scientific claims you like but don’t make any moral judgments as there is no basis for them.
I have a good reason and I don’t look to the clergy to be informed about science.
So what? This issue isn’t about whether we should be good stewards, it is about the scientific basis for the AGW position. Your statement is not relevant to that question.
What moral question is relevant? You cannot identify any moral issue that doesn’t make an (uncharitable) assumption about why someone rejects AGW.
This is not relevant to the question I asked, and based on your comments that “deceit is everywhere”, you appear to concede that the AGW pushers have indeed lied … and that this doesn’t bother you very much.
Then please share your good reasons with integrity,
I’m really not interested in rehashing the competing scientific claims. You are new to this forum but I’m not, I’ve engaged in those debates for years, and for the time being I’m not going to re-engage them. Nor are they relevant to the issue I did want to discuss and about which my comments on this thread were directed.
I can understand your noninterest in rehashing the competing scientific claims. I am not eager to do that either. It is technical, boring and a lot of work. But I think many skip that part and just go with what they want to believe and quite often it is for ideological reasons. I will trust you have done the homework and for some reason fall in the minority opinion.
Thank you. That’s a refreshing (and regrettably rare) attitude.
Not at all. There is clearly evidence that CO2 influences the climate and no doubt whatever that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is also, however, evidence that CO2 does not have the effect claimed. There are reasonable and competing claims … who is the layman to believe? Now I am not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in chemistry and the basic arguments are easy enough to follow. Based on my understanding of the science I find the claims of the AGW side are unproven and overstated. Beyond that, however lies the only issue I have raised in this thread: if the science so obviously supports the AGW side why have they resorted to deception? This practice permeates the debate and certainly includes the IPCC reports. It isn’t a question of whether the entire report is a lie; it is enough to know that it contains them.
Ya, well I guess I came across as a Catholic/AGW Nazi or something. I love fresh air, water and green trees. I saw the wreck we made since the undustrial revolution up until EPA regulations put some restraint on the toxic dumping. Do you remember the 1960’s? Things had gotten pretty bad. We have come a long way since the 70’s but without regulation we all would be walking around with gas masks by now. Ther are still many rivers and bodies of water that I would not want to swim in. How about you?
**“If the science so obviously supports the AGW side why have they resorted to deception?” **It is done probably more than we realize in all sorts of research beyond the AGW issue. Maybe you wouldn’t tweek data to publish a significant study but someone more desperate (nonCatholic of course) would for any number of reasons including fame and research grants.
These are valid concerns and there are reasonable steps that can be taken to address the problems these activities cause. To disagree with AGW and its associated “cures” is not to suggest that there are not real environmental issues that can and should be resolved.
It may be true that global warming is good for life in general, and even for some people in particular. Responsible climate scientists do not claim otherwise. But what can be predicted fairly reliably is that if the climate warms enough then sea levels will rise. A large fraction of humanity now lives on land that is one or two meters above sea level. These people will be displaced. Who will receive them and give them new land to live on? It will be a humanitarian crisis and possibly a political crisis as these refugees fight for a place to live. In two or three generations things will settle out and life will go on (maybe). But is it just that we who live above 100 meters should have no care for how our actions are affecting the people who live below 2 meters?
If global warming is good for life in general, we have a possible conflict then between life in general, versus those that live in low areas.
I think we all have to do our parts – individuals, households, businesses, schools, churches, all levels of government, the rich and the poor. This is one problem, as JPII said, is the responsibility of everyone. There’s no magic bullet.