When did the Vatican state that climate change was against God’s will?
Seems to me that God has been in the driver’s seat of climate change from day 1.
- Status
Seems to me that God has been in the driver’s seat of climate change from day 1.
Quotes the nameless analyst.
If this source was not so anonymous it may have more credibility.
It is also not settled science that CO2 causes global warming, or follows it, regardless of man’s participation.
Jon
V
Valke2
Guest
It was from an article in the Guardianl. I think it was back in May. I’m sure other Catholics are familiar with it and I know a quick google will find the article, because that’s how I found it. Sorry I didn’t post the link. I thought I did.
M
mpi
Guest
Pope Condemns Climate Change Prophets of Doom
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html
N
Neolithic
Guest
Imagine the following situations (note: I’m referring to man made Global Warming)
A - Global Warming Is Real
B - Global Warming Is Not Real
Imagine the following solutions and consequences:
A (1) - We take the necessary precautions recommended by all the top scientists, and life on Earth - God’s Creation - continues to thrive.
A (2) - We do nothing and now life as we know it is gone; a disaster second only to nuclear war has taken hold. The damage is IRREVERSIBLE.
B - We take the necessary precautions recommended by all the top scientists, and even though Global Warming was not real, at least we were prepared. We only suffer a few REVERSIBLE economic problems, such as higher taxes.
Which two make the most sense?
My vote: A(1) & B.
A - Global Warming Is Real
B - Global Warming Is Not Real
Imagine the following solutions and consequences:
A (1) - We take the necessary precautions recommended by all the top scientists, and life on Earth - God’s Creation - continues to thrive.
A (2) - We do nothing and now life as we know it is gone; a disaster second only to nuclear war has taken hold. The damage is IRREVERSIBLE.
B - We take the necessary precautions recommended by all the top scientists, and even though Global Warming was not real, at least we were prepared. We only suffer a few REVERSIBLE economic problems, such as higher taxes.
Which two make the most sense?
My vote: A(1) & B.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
even if AGW is for real there is little we can realistically do about it and we know for a fact that we are headed eventually into a new ice age.
the natural cycles of orbit eccentricity, inclination, tilt and precession are much more certain and significant than man made CO2 of which little more than 3% is attributed to man.
an ice age earth will be much more damaging to modern civilization than AGW.
the natural cycles of orbit eccentricity, inclination, tilt and precession are much more certain and significant than man made CO2 of which little more than 3% is attributed to man.
an ice age earth will be much more damaging to modern civilization than AGW.
N
Neolithic
Guest
The danger, though, is the warming period until the ice age. It doesn’t cool everywhere
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
this assumes you believe that temperatures are increasing. how much of this is from heat island effect or anthropogenic waste heat. all of the lights, engines, furnaces, fires… etc. must warm the the air around cities.
there is too much uncertainty about global temperature measurements for me to uncritically accept al gore’s doomsday senario. especially considering he’s getting rich from this theory.
M
mpi
Guest
You have false logic.
If global warming/climate change is real (which I deny but anyway) then we want to be able to adapt to change. The best way for a society to adapt to change is to have a dynamic capitalist economy. Government intervention leads to economic sclerosis and inability to adapt to change.
So the best way to deal with any kind of unknown impending change is capitalism - not government intervention. The very act (or non-act) of doing nothing actually prepares us best for change.
This is why the US has done better than the other developed nations as we entered the “information age”. The US is more capitalist than other nations so it has a more dynamic economy that can react to change.
Perhaps I was not clear.
I am commenting on the quote listed in the article not having a source other then “an analyst”
If the article cannot attach a specific name to quotes like that, then I question the credibility of the article as a whole.
E
Ender
Guest
Where to begin? “All” of the top scientists don’t agree on anything; certainly they don’t agree that man is responsible for global warming. Most are uncommitted; they neither reject nor accept man’s responsibility.
Nor are the recommendations for “solutions” coming mainly from scientists - they are coming from bureaucrats and politicians. Kyoto, for example, would have imposed significant, painful restrictions on most of the industrialized world but would have yielded virtually no positive change in the projected warming (even assuming the theory was correct). This was not the recommendation of scientists.
The entire disaster scenario is no more realistic than a Star Wars movie. The seas will not rise twenty feet (or even one foot), polar bears will not become extinct (their numbers are increasing), the tropics will not become desert wastelands and the costs for avoiding these non-existent perils will much greater than merely higher taxes. This is an assault on a way of life and it is no mere coincidence that organizations whose objective is population control have lined up most strongly behind it.
Ender
N
Neolithic
Guest
So, rather than chance government intervention, you propose to leave it up to companies who are, in part, responsible for the current economic climate?
The false logic, to me, is trusting companies to do the right thing when, in fact, companies are always concerned, first and foremost, with satisfying their stakeholders.
And when I say “top scientists,” I’m talking about those at MIT, NASA, National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, CCSP, European Academy of Sciences & Art, IAC, CAETS, the National Science Academies of the following nations: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Then factor in all the colleges and universities, and I think it’s very reasonable to say, “all the top scientists.”
As far as the global cooling, I pasted a link addressing that.
I just don’t think its wise to put our future in the hands of nay-sayers who, if wrong, will have effectively destroyed God’s creation. Maybe you’re comfortable with that, but I’m not.
N
Neolithic
Guest
I came across this CNN article, updated January 20, 2009 - or, today.
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.
**Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.**
cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.
**Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.**
cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
M
mpi
Guest
Yes - leave it up to private individuals and institutions (which includes companies) and not in the government’s hands.
You talk about the current “economic mess” as a reason to not leave it in the hands of private citizens and institutions. Capitalist nations have ups and downs with the economic cycle and they always emerge stronger after going through the “crisis”. Socialist nations implode and collapse (i.e. Soviet Union). Do you forget which side won the cold war?
It is only a profound sense of liberal elitist arrogance that would make one think that the government is in the best position to help its citizens through every “crisis”.
You forget that the entities that promote global warming - academics and bureaucrats - have a vested interest in expanding government. They are not impartial observers. Where do you thin scientists get much of their grant money?
N
Neolithic
Guest
Sir, naivete is being revealed. You propose leaving the future of this nation - indeed, the world - in the hands of a private sector, in which members are the cause of the following:
- 1924 Nixon Nitrate Disaster, caused by plant conditions.
- 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill
- Oil spills in both San Francisco and New Orleans in '07 and '08
- Exon Valdex oil spill and the Greenpoint oil spill
- Brio Superfund Site, in which toxic waste ravaged a small community.
- Donora Smog of 1948
- Hanford
- Kingston Fossil Plant
- Lake Peigneur
- Libby, Montana
- Love Canal (again, toxic waste)
- Murphy Oil Spill
- New Carissa
- New River, New Mexico (toxic waste in the river)
- Phillips Disaster and subsequent explosions in '99 and '00
- Prudoe Bay Oil Spill
- Santa Susana Field Laboratory
- Summitville Mine
- Times Beach, Missouri
- View-Master factory
- Midland Dow-Chemical leaking toxins into the Saginaw River
- PG & E lies and toxic waste, after which a movie named Erin Brockovich was created.
And that, friend, is simply what I remember. Imagine what I’d find if I looked around.
The “economic mess” was simply an example of how de-regulation causes problems. When discussing how best to deal with Climate Change, nobody is proposing massive regulations like you speak of in communist nations. But necessary, environmental regulations that, in fact, will spur growth and create jobs.
Which I suspect is as bad as conservatives looking at the world with blinders on, embracing an idealogy rather than reason.
Indeed. The vast leftwing conspiracy to destroy the American way of life.
V
Valke2
Guest
Don;t forget the recent coal ash spill.
I hope that the government takes steps to promote investment by the private sector in “green technology.”
I like the idea of an sliding gas tax which ensures that the price of gas will not fall beyond a specific price. This way investors can have some assurance that if they invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a clean energy technology, they won’t be cut off at the knees whenever gas prices fall.
I like the idea of redesigning the electrical grid. It can be a lot more efficient and possibly save you and me money at the same time.
I’m not crazy about how biofuels are developing. That’s something that needs to be looked at fresh with every different geographical area. Corn biodiesel is a losing proposition, except for the corn suppliers, and sugar biodisel makes sense in certain areas, like Brazil more than other areas, like New Jersey.
I also think that some of the low tech “whackier” ideas have merit. For a long time I’ve wondered why we don’t just paint roofs and blacktops white, to reflect more sunlight (although that might cost in heat efficience in the winter in colder climates). Now scientists are seriously looking at planting crops that reflect more sunlight, etc.
I’m ambivilant about carbon caps/trades. That just seems to have a lot of loopholes built in to the system. A tax break for industires/companies that reduce their emissions seems more plausable, as would be an additional tax on companies based on the amount of greenhouse gases they omit (with lesser penalties being applied to industries like oil/gas).
I hope that the government takes steps to promote investment by the private sector in “green technology.”
I like the idea of an sliding gas tax which ensures that the price of gas will not fall beyond a specific price. This way investors can have some assurance that if they invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a clean energy technology, they won’t be cut off at the knees whenever gas prices fall.
I like the idea of redesigning the electrical grid. It can be a lot more efficient and possibly save you and me money at the same time.
I’m not crazy about how biofuels are developing. That’s something that needs to be looked at fresh with every different geographical area. Corn biodiesel is a losing proposition, except for the corn suppliers, and sugar biodisel makes sense in certain areas, like Brazil more than other areas, like New Jersey.
I also think that some of the low tech “whackier” ideas have merit. For a long time I’ve wondered why we don’t just paint roofs and blacktops white, to reflect more sunlight (although that might cost in heat efficience in the winter in colder climates). Now scientists are seriously looking at planting crops that reflect more sunlight, etc.
I’m ambivilant about carbon caps/trades. That just seems to have a lot of loopholes built in to the system. A tax break for industires/companies that reduce their emissions seems more plausable, as would be an additional tax on companies based on the amount of greenhouse gases they omit (with lesser penalties being applied to industries like oil/gas).
As opposed to the government?Sir, naivete is being revealed. You propose leaving the future of this nation - indeed, the world - in the hands of a private sector, in which members are the cause of the following:
So, yes, the private sector certainly has an impressive track record at taking care of our environment!
- 1924 Nixon Nitrate Disaster, caused by plant conditions.
- 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill
- Oil spills in both San Francisco and New Orleans in '07 and '08
- Exon Valdex oil spill and the Greenpoint oil spill
- Brio Superfund Site, in which toxic waste ravaged a small community.
- Donora Smog of 1948
- Hanford
- Kingston Fossil Plant
- Lake Peigneur
- Libby, Montana
- Love Canal (again, toxic waste)
- Murphy Oil Spill
- New Carissa
- New River, New Mexico (toxic waste in the river)
- Phillips Disaster and subsequent explosions in '99 and '00
- Prudoe Bay Oil Spill
- Santa Susana Field Laboratory
- Summitville Mine
- Times Beach, Missouri
- View-Master factory
- Midland Dow-Chemical leaking toxins into the Saginaw River
- PG & E lies and toxic waste, after which a movie named Erin Brockovich was created.
Wow…now there’s an idea.
N
Neolithic
Guest
The government simply implements regulations, like a carbon tax - etc. If the private sector breaks a regulation, they get fined. Simple. The government doesn’t have to do a whole lot, 'cept fine people. I’m sad to say - it’s necessary at this point. We’ve known about Global Warming since the early 90s. If the private sector cared all that much, they’d have done something by now.As opposed to the government?
Wow…now there’s an idea.
- Status