Global Warming

[Valke2]

Maybe I’m way late in this conversation, but has anyone bothered to see what Catholic teaching says about Global warming? Just a thought for all of us who claim we are 100% with Catholic teaching.

Thank you for that link. A few quotes from it:

Rapid climate change as the result of human activity is now recognised by the global scientific community as a reality…

We are indebted to the scientists, environmental activists, rural people, foresters, fisher people, writers, artists, photographers, educators, business people, government officials, society leaders and all who have helped humanity become aware of the dangers of climate change and create human choices for an alternative future.

We need to keep in mind the Precautionary Principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing remedial measures. Its application in science, law and politics is a minimal requirement if wisdom and prudence are our values The USA Catholic bishops focus on prudence and precaution in their 2004 statement on Global Warming. usccb.org/

 

[Oscarthecat]

Maybe I’m way late in this conversation, but has anyone bothered to see what Catholic teaching says about Global warming? Just a thought for all of us who claim we are 100% with Catholic teaching.

Yes, I’m familiar with that document. It is neither authoritative nor doctrinal, as the Church does not claim to teach authoritatively in regard to any scientific issue.

Additionally, there are those in Catholic leadership who warn that global warming proponents are going way too far…

"“What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition,” he said. “I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8678

 

[Michaelo]

Oscarthecat, how would you suggest we handle climate change?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat, how would you suggest we handle climate change?

I can’t answer that question as you stated it because you are presuming a couple of things that aren’t true…

First, your question assumes that I believe that climate change is actually happening in the way that global warming proponents do- which I don’t. Sure there may be evidence of recent changes to familiar weather patterns, but there is no evidence that those changes aren’t part of the larger natural cycle and/or the result of natural events outside of our control.

Second, your question assumes that I believe that this climate change is something we even can or should “handle” in the first place. The dinosaurs experienced pretty severe climate change that seems to have worked out to our advantage- if this climate change actually is happening, then our goal should be to adapt to it, not make hair-brained efforts to lock the planet into its present climactic levels in the hope that we can stave off the inevitable.

Third, your question assumes that I believe human beings even have the intellectual, technological, or moral capacity to alter the world’s climate in any way that could produce predictable, reliable results in such a way that would prove to be in humanity’s best interests.

Ultimately, I think that we’d both agree that human beings are very good at breaking things, and not very good at fixing them-

After all…if, as you say (and I don’t believe it for a minute), we did so much damage to the environment by accident when we weren’t even trying- can you imagine what kind of damage we’re capable of if we really put our minds to it??

So…I guess my only answer is that individuals should follow their consciences, individually. If you want to conserve, or buy “green” products, or even boycott those companies that are spewing out all kinds of harmful waste into the air and water, then go for it.

Just don’t force me to participate in the dictates of your conscience by stealing money from me and redistributing it to people without my consent, or telling me what I can or cannot buy, or dictating to me what I should or should not teach my children about the environment.

 

[mapleoak]

Oscarthecat, how would you suggest we handle climate change?

If it is even remotely possible that man can control the Earth’s climates, then it would be pretty dangerous to go about “monkeying with a weapon that one has no idea how to use”.

 

[Oscarthecat]

If it is even remotely possible that man can control the Earth’s climates, then it would be pretty dangerous to go about “monkeying with a weapon that one has no idea how to use”.

Exactly- I’m still waiting for someone to show me the chapter called “Climate Control” in manual that came with this planet.

(And if anyone says “The Bible is the manual that came with this planet” I’m going to double my carbon footprint for the entire day.)

 

[Michaelo]

Sure there may be evidence of recent changes to familiar weather patterns, but there is no evidence that those changes aren’t part of the larger natural cycle and/or the result of natural events outside of our control.

Did you not check out the information I posted from the EPA linking human activity to a rise in average global temperature? Or have you already conveniently dismissed it?

Second, your question assumes that I believe that this climate change is something we even can or should “handle” in the first place.

If the multitude of negative effects of climate change are anthropogenic, then why don’t we have a responsibility to act?

Third, your question assumes that I believe human beings even have the intellectual, technological, or moral capacity to alter the world’s climate in any way that could produce predictable, reliable results in such a way that would prove to be in humanity’s best interests.

If we have already managed to alter the composition of the atmosphere, thereby raising the average global temperature, why aren’t we also capable of curbing the behavior that produces this effect?

Ultimately, I think that we’d both agree that human beings are very good at breaking things, and not very good at fixing them-

I think you are unfairly underestimating humanity’s potential.

After all…if, as you say (and I don’t believe it for a minute), we did so much damage to the environment…

Oh really? I invite you to refute the conclusions reached by the EPA.

 

[a_burger]

Yes, let’s get the facts on global warrming. The four major tracking stations have one thing in common. First the names of the tracking stations are Hadley (Had-crut), NASA"s GISS, UAH, and RSS. They all report that the temperature of the earth fell dramatically in 2008. Anyone reading this can do a search but just putting those names in their computer. I was told I was not iformed. My friend I’m very informed. The average drop in temperaturre was .6405. According to an expert this was a record decrease in history. I’m sorry I ruined your scam and looked up the facts. Jesus said let no man deceive you. In addition there were 31,00 scientists sign a petition rejecting the claim that humans caused global warming.

Also the leading scientist in his field reported the sea level rise scam. At the end of 2009 the sea level was exactly the same level as the end of 1979. The new world order people planned this enviromental disaster scam in order to bring in the one world government. Like Jesus said let no deceive you. That is a command. This is spiritual warfare.

---

from the family Calvert

 

[Oscarthecat]

Did you not check out the information I posted from the EPA linking human activity to a rise in average global temperature? Or have you already conveniently dismissed it?

Yes, I did. And yes, I did.
The EPA has a lot to gain from getting politicians and voters to believe a) that global warming is a problem, and b) that the EPA can help fix it.

If the multitude of negative effects of climate change are anthropogenic, then why don’t we have a responsibility to act?

You worked an erroneous presumption into your question again.

If we have already managed to alter the composition of the atmosphere, thereby raising the average global temperature, why aren’t we also capable of curbing the behavior that produces this effect?

Because, if we did manage to alter the composition of the atmosphere, we did it completely unintentionally- without any understanding of the unintended consequences of we were doing or how we were doing it.

I think you are unfairly underestimating humanity’s potential.

Really? I might say the same of the environmental movement, from whom I frequently hear that humans are a viral plague on this planet or, as has been said in this very thread, that human beings have had a predominately negative effect on the earth.

I don’t underestimate humanity’s potential- I think you overestimate the complexity of what you think we are able to “handle” at our current level of science and technology.

Maybe one day- but definitely not today. For crying out loud, aren’t you relieved we didn’t dump all that soot and ash on the poles back in the 70’s when scientists said it was the only way to stop global cooling???

Oh really? I invite you to refute the conclusions reached by the EPA.

In my experience, I have realized that it is a waste of time to refute the conclusions of environmentalists for exactly the same reasons it is futile to try to debate people in fanatic religious cults.
For example…

-They respond to all criticisms with simple statements designed to constantly redirect the discussion in an attempt to force their opposition to adapt to a constantly growing chain of logical fallacies.
-Their beliefs are cemented by a near-certain expectation of an impending crisis that can only be avoided by giving lots of money to their cult leader- or, if they don’t have enough money, then the crisis can only be averted by taking OTHER PEOPLE’s money and giving it to their cult leader.
-Their entire worldview and self-image is based on their association with their cult- such that rejecting the cult will force them to re-evaluate everything they thought they believed about themselves and the world.
-They feel that they have special knowledge about the world that requires an open-mindedness that is simply impossible for anyone who disagrees with them.
-They resist questioning their beliefs because they fear it might alienate them from their friends.
–They generally believe everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs is evil and wishes them harm.
-They think that anyone who has left their cult is even more evil than the rest of the world. (I used to be an environmentalist…)

and last but not least,
-I will inevitably be accused of being an uncaring person who wishes harm on humanity.

 

[Michaelo]

Yes, let’s get the facts on global warrming. The four major tracking stations have one thing in common. First the names of the tracking stations are Hadley (Had-crut), NASA"s GISS, UAH, and RSS. They all report that the temperature of the earth fell dramatically in 2008.

La Niña is the culprit:

The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Niña being the cool phase.

The top of Fig. 2 provides seasonal resolution of global and low latitude surface temperature, and an index that measures the state of the natural tropical temperature oscillation. The figure indicates that the La Niña cool cycle peaked in early 2008. The global effect of the tropical oscillation is made clear by the average temperature anomaly over the global ocean (bottom of Fig. 2). The “El Niño of the century”, in 1997-98, stands out, as well as the recent La Niña.

source

 

[Michaelo]

You worked an erroneous presumption into your question again.

And you have again failed to demonstrate why the link between climate change and human activity is unfounded.

Because, if we did manage to alter the composition of the atmosphere, we did it completely unintentionally- without any understanding of the unintended consequences of we were doing or how we were doing it.

That’s the beauty of hindsight as now we can look back and determine what behavior yielded which consequences.

Really? I might say the same of the environmental movement, from whom I frequently hear that humans are a viral plague on this planet or,

It may be tempting, but please do not assume that I espouse the same views as these individuals.

as has been said in this very thread, that human beings have had a predominately negative effect on the earth.

This statement opens up another discussion that involves other topics besides climate change, so I’d prefer not to digress by addressing it.

I don’t underestimate humanity’s potential- I think you overestimate the complexity of what you think we are able to “handle” at our current level of science and technology.

Really? The Clean Air Act has been a testament to our potential:

By any objective measurement, the act has been a tremendous success. The air is cleaner and public health has improved. Emissions of toxic lead have dropped 98 percent. Emissions of sulfur dioxide have dropped by 35 percent percent even though the gross domestic product has more than doubled. Emissions of carbon monoxide have dropped by 32 percent even though driving has increased 127 percent.

source

In my experience, I have realized that it is a waste of time to refute the conclusions of environmentalists for exactly the same reasons it is futile to try to debate people in fanatic religious cults.

Well that’s nice, but if you are going to continue to discredit the EPA then you definitely need to offer a detailed explanation of why its conclusions are invalid.

 

[Calliso]

Ok just a couple links to address the conspiracy theory they are all in it for the money…and other stuff…

greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html

 

[a_burger]

Come on Michaelo. Now you want to change the rules. You want to put El Nino in the equation to explain away global cooling. Yet you wouldn’t take away the unusually high amounts of sunspots for global warming. Yes, I do know the UN scientists didn’t count that as a variable. I’m sorry since you left the sunspots out for global warming you will need to let out El Nino for global cooling. We do want to be fair don’t we Michaelo?

 

[mapleoak]

They all report that the temperature of the earth fell dramatically in 2008. Anyone reading this can do a search but just putting those names in their computer. I was told I was not iformed. My friend I’m very informed. The average drop in temperaturre was .6405. According to an expert this was a record decrease in history.

The data which I linked to earlier from GISS for example, could be looked at in various ways. Since they use a base period from 1951 to 1980 to derive their mean, one could expect the population of above and below variations of the mean line to be roughly equal. Since their trend line shows an increasing temperature up to the mean from 1880 through 1950, that (as silly as it is to make a black/white comparison using pre 50’s data against post 50’s data) would indicate a rise from the lower limit of the population. From 1980 through present would indicate a rise from the mean toward the higher limit in the cycle after which point the high limit is reach, there should be a downward trend observed. Of course we couldn’t know with such a short time frame what that high limit is.
Further the base period would appear to have been arbitrarily set and credence given to this base period being called ‘normal’ should be done with caution. Since we can already observe a marked downward trend in the yearly mean, it would possibly make more sense if the base period was moved to an earlier period in the historical data, since the current base may be well offset from the mean midpoint of the climate cycle.

 

[Michaelo]

Come on Michaelo. Now you want to change the rules. You want to put El Nino in the equation to explain away global cooling. Yet you wouldn’t take away the unusually high amounts of sunspots for global warming. Yes, I do know the UN scientists didn’t count that as a variable. I’m sorry since you left the sunspots out for global warming you will need to let out El Nino for global cooling. We do want to be fair don’t we Michaelo?

Can you restate how I’m being unfair? Your post is a tad confusing.

 

[trinitybeliever]

Maybe I’m way late in this conversation, but has anyone bothered to see what Catholic teaching says about Global warming? Just a thought for all of us who claim we are 100% with Catholic teaching.

The very fact that you would frame this link as “Catholic teaching” is false and shows the weakness of your argument. Global Warming / Climate Change believers seem to grasp at any source that will lend credulity to their agenda. Unfortunately, they also exaggerate claims and statistics too make there point as you have done here. The problem is many do not take the time to verify and thus begin to believe the hoax.

I challenge you to show actual Catholic Magisterial teaching on the subject of mans role in “Global Warming” or Climate Change".

Follow this link to see what volcanic activity is and what it spews into the atmosphere.
google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/volcano_hawaii_kilauea_Puu_oo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.solarnavigator.net/volcanoes.htm&h=467&w=617&sz=21&tbnid=tMiUiijo1PfdXM::&tbnh=103&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvolcano&hl=en&usg=__iF5h1iv3CrBcIJ2JpvVrph9PR70=&ei=Lpi0Sbb3HJqqtQOSk_zXAQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&cd=1
Also, at any given time around the earth there are volcanic activities much of it under the waters of our oceans.

Climate change hysteria is nothing more that political power grabbing by the left. It is an obvious agenda and, unfortunately many are buying into this hysteria. Most people don’t understand the strong connection between some “scientists” and political agendas. I guarantee you, politicians do understand the connection and have for decades. Conniving, self-serving and sophisticated politicians are using ordinary well intentioned people to accomplish their plans to wealth and power. They have an incestuous connection where one helps the other to bleed the public treasury. The glue holding together this agenda is the full cooperation with academia. Academic Liberal elites are more than happy to help these self-serving leftists because they are also feeding from the Government trough. One more piece of the puzzle are Labor Unions and The Communist Party.

Don’t believe yet? Just visit the Communist Party website at www.cpusa.org

The Science on this issue is complex and there is no “consensus” as the left would have us believe. In fact, there is an vast community of scientists who disagree with the conclusions that have been forwarded by those “scientists” who have an obvious political agenda tied directly to TAXPAYER MONEY, POWER AND PRESTIGE.(Hello Al Gore- Hello Nobel Peace Prize)

This issue is the lefts attempt to shut down Capitalism and stifle Free Enterprise. They want to control markets and ultimately control behavior and restrict freedom. This is the end game for social engineers who’s aim it is to control all commerce.:

There is soo, much more to say about this issue and the effect it is having on people.

:snowing::nunchuk:

 

[CatholicLeft]

I challenge you to show actual Catholic Magisterial teaching on the subject of mans role in “Global Warming” or Climate Change".

OK, apparently mans role in saving mankind from global warming is just as important as saving mankind from homosexuality. Whether we are the cause of it remains debatable, but apparently we are being called to fight it, which, I guess, shows it does exist.

The family, the human community and the environment

1. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

1. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

Papal Message for '08 World Peace Day- 1 JANUARY 2008

 

[trinitybeliever]

Ok just a couple links to address the conspiracy theory they are all in it for the money…and other stuff…

greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html

Heres a few other links you should read:

globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8878

 

[trinitybeliever]

OK, apparently mans role in saving mankind from global warming is just as important as saving mankind from homosexuality. Whether we are the cause of it remains debatable, but apparently we are being called to fight it, which, I guess, shows it does exist.

Your first statement is completely irrational. Please explain what you mean.

As to the Pope’s message.
The Holy Father is saying we have a responsibility to be good stewards to the environment. I agree with him 100%. He does not support or endorse your argument

He states nothing about global warming or mans role in climate change. How do you read this into it?

Furthermore ,even if he had supported your position, it would not be a matter of Faith or Magisterial teaching.

Once again, you are citing material as a reinforcement of your position that does nothing of the sort. Once again, it debunks your argument.

 

[a_burger]

Why is the post so confusing. Basically in any equation you must include all variables. I’m assuming you have a basic math education. The Al Gore followers only use equations that benefit their global warming scam.