Global Warming

  • Thread starter Thread starter kooldood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kooldood

Guest
Does the Church, or the Church’s servants (e.i. bishops, brothers, whatever) have any position - however informal - or some opinion on it? Are there any Church works or anything of the sort on it? Really, I have no idea about it and have not formed my opinion on the subject, so I was wondering if the Church had something to say about it, or at least some “leaning”. (such as could be said (debatedly) of the death penalty). Help? :confused:
 
Does the Church, or the Church’s servants (e.i. bishops, brothers, whatever) have any position - however informal - or some opinion on it? Are there any Church works or anything of the sort on it? Really, I have no idea about it and have not formed my opinion on the subject, so I was wondering if the Church had something to say about it, or at least some “leaning”. (such as could be said (debatedly) of the death penalty). Help? :confused:
The Church has said we need to be good stewards of the earth; beyond that she has no position on the validity of the scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming so we are individually permitted - and obligated - to decide this question for ourselves. Believing that AGW is scientifically valid is neither more nor less moral than believing it is invalid; it is a scientific issue, not a moral one.

Ender
 
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS
FOR THE FEAST OF VESAKH 2008

Christians and Buddhists:
Caring for the Planet Earth

Dear Buddhist Friends,
  1. On the occasion of the festival of Vesakh, I am writing to you and your communities worldwide to convey my own warm greetings, as well as those of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
  2. It gives me much joy to recall the positive relationships that Catholics and Buddhists have enjoyed for many years. I am confident that this foundation will serve to strengthen and deepen our understanding of each other as we continue to work together to build a better world not only for ourselves but also for the entire human family. Experience teaches us that dialogue fosters the desire within the person and the community to share the goodwill and harmony which already exists, and indeed to reach out ever more courageously to others, ready to embrace the challenges and difficulties that may arise.
  3. Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2008 Message for the World Day of Peace, observed: “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” (no. 7). The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2008 as The International Year of Planet Earth. As inhabitants of the earth and believers, Christians and Buddhists respect the same creation and have a common concern to promote care for the environment which we all share.
  4. Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for everyone. Many governments, NGOs, multi-national companies, and research and tertiary institutes, in recognizing the ethical implications present in all economic and social development, are investing financial resources as well as sharing expertise on biodiversity, climate change, environmental protection and conservation. Religious leaders, too, are contributing to the public debate. This contribution is of course not just a reaction to the more recent pressing threats associated with global warming. Christianity and Buddhism have always upheld a great respect for nature and taught that we should be grateful stewards of the earth. Indeed it is only through a profound reflection on the relationship between the divine Creator, creation and creatures that attempts to address environmental concerns will not be marred by individual greed or hampered by the interests of particular groups.
  5. On a practical level can we Christians and Buddhists not do more to collaborate in projects which confirm the responsibility that falls to each and everyone of us? Recycling, energy conservation, the prevention of indiscriminate destruction of plant and animal life, and the protection of waterways all speak of careful stewardship and indeed foster goodwill and promote cordial relations among peoples. In this way Christians and Buddhists together can be harbingers of hope for a clean, safe and harmonious world.
  6. Dear Friends, I trust that we can promote this message within our respective communities through public education and our good example in respecting nature and acting responsibly towards our one common planet Earth. Once again let me renew my heartfelt greetings and wish you a Happy Feast of Vesakh.
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran
President

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
Secretary
 
COPENHAGEN-POPE Dec-7-2009 (380 words) xxxi

On eve of climate summit, pope calls for responsible lifestyles

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – On the eve of the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, Pope Benedict XVI said protection of the environment requires more sober lifestyles and a rediscovery of the “moral dimension” of development.

The pope, speaking at his noon blessing at the Vatican Dec. 6, said he hoped the Dec. 7-18 conference in the Danish capital would identify policies that “respect creation and promote a cooperative development founded on the dignity of the human person and oriented toward the common good.”

“The protection of creation demands the adoption of lifestyles that are sober and responsible, especially toward the poor and future generations,” the pope said.

“In this perspective, to guarantee the full success of the conference, I invite all people of good will to respect the laws made by God regarding nature and to rediscover the moral dimension of human life,” he said.

The Vatican’s five-person delegation to the conference was headed by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations.

The German pope has spoken increasingly about the moral and spiritual dimensions of ecology, and he has taken steps to reduce the Vatican’s carbon footprint, including the installation of solar panels atop the Paul VI audience hall and participation in a reforestation project in Hungary.

The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said the pope’s repeated references to more simple lifestyles underscored that ecological solutions must involve everyone.

“The Copenhagen conference on climate will be considered a success or a failure depending on the commitments assumed by governments, especially those of the biggest and most powerful countries,” Father Lombardi said in a commentary on Vatican Radio Dec. 5.

But Father Lombardi added that implementing new policies “will depend on the aggregate behavior of all of us inhabitants of the earth.” People today have grown too used to shifting ecological responsibility on others, and need to see themselves as protagonists in the defense of the environment, he said.

He said the wide range of ecological problems today, including drought, air pollution, water contamination, soil erosion, rainfall modification and even hurricanes, were caused in part by human behavior and decisions.

The negative effects involve the entire planet, but above all the poor, who are the first to suffer and die because of environmental damage, he said.

END

Copyright (c) 2009 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250
 
Hiyas:)

IMHO, We are called to be good stewards.
Be a good steward to the environment.

Also being a good steward means identifying where my environmental funds are really going.This is hard to accomplish when facts are hidden / deleted, by those who stand to make money off of a theory.

Man made global warming [AGW]…through all this…still remains…a theory.
A theory not embraced , as some would have us believe as ‘settled science’…it is fact - that it still not proven scientifically. This is exactly why The Church leaves it up to us. AGW is theory - not proven.

It is also a theory that these actions suggested… will help. I have no doubt, it may clean the air of some pollutants…BUT that’s not what’s being sold.

We are being asked/forced to accept without question. Does that sound like being a good steward? Would one have a Doctor remove a leg without questioning? Especially if that Doctor refuses to consult the other Doctors in the room.

There is a difference between climatic change and Man Made [AGW] Global warming.

Climate change has happened / will happen as long as earth lives. It happened without humans.

No amount of legislated laws will change that fact.

Does this mean skeptics want to trash the earth, as some believe about us skeptics?
Some of the greatest carbon footprints are owned by the very people trying to push this AND they stand to gain the most.

We skeptics clean streams…clean roadsides…recycle…as much as anyone.

There is all kinds of pollutants in this world.
 
The complete moral bankruptcy of the whole globalwarming scam has been exposed.
 
As a “skeptic”, how to you plan to resolve your uncertainty on this issue?

Decision points are upon us each day, and doing nothing is an active decision to accept the current status.

If you do not have a plan to resolve the issue for yourself, then I don’t think you are a skeptic anymore. Your decision has effectively been made.

Of course, your other option is to defer to the judgement of someone you trust. This is sort of like delegating a decision to a subordinate or peer. But it doesn’t sound like you plan to do that.
 
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
Seems like the Professionals / Leaders are deciding
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.
 
As a “skeptic”, how to you plan to resolve your uncertainty on this issue?

Decision points are upon us each day, and doing nothing is an active decision to accept the current status.

If you do not have a plan to resolve the issue for yourself, then I don’t think you are a skeptic anymore. Your decision has effectively been made.

Of course, your other option is to defer to the judgement of someone you trust. This is sort of like delegating a decision to a subordinate or peer. But it doesn’t sound like you plan to do that.
The Pope said: “The protection of creation demands the adoption of lifestyles that are sober and responsible, especially toward the poor and future generations.”

Bankrupting our economy in the name of something which was no proven and which has had considerable doubt thrown on it would not really be responsible to our future generations, would it?
 
As a “skeptic”, how to you plan to resolve your uncertainty on this issue?

Decision points are upon us each day, and doing nothing is an active decision to accept the current status.

If you do not have a plan to resolve the issue for yourself, then I don’t think you are a skeptic anymore. Your decision has effectively been made.

Of course, your other option is to defer to the judgement of someone you trust. This is sort of like delegating a decision to a subordinate or peer. But it doesn’t sound like you plan to do that.
Hmmmmmm…The best option is education on the matter. 🤷
 
Questioning is great, but indefinite questioning is again, actually a decision to not act.

Your earlier posts suggest you don’t see the harm in being a skeptic. Undue delay in a time-sensitive situation is the harm that I see.

Some issues are not like evolution, where no one actually is affected by the “answer”. There will be no sudden run on Banana’s at the store…
 
Hmmmmmm…The best option is education on the matter. 🤷
Exactly. Basically, all I am doing is asking CAF members for their opinion on the subject. I am going to form my own. BTW, thaks to everyboy who answered. 👍
 
Questioning is great, but indefinite questioning is again, actually a decision to not act.

Your earlier posts suggest you don’t see the harm in being a skeptic. Undue delay in a time-sensitive situation is the harm that I see.

Some issues are not like evolution, where no one actually is affected by the “answer”. There will be no sudden run on Banana’s at the store…
wait - are you talking about me or about someone else? :confused:
 
Questioning is great, but indefinite questioning is again, actually a decision to not act.

Your earlier posts suggest you don’t see the harm in being a skeptic. Undue delay in a time-sensitive situation is the harm that I see.

Some issues are not like evolution, where no one actually is affected by the “answer”. There will be no sudden run on Banana’s at the store…
My brother Wade,

**Slow down & take a deep breath! **The world will not end tomorrow, despite the constant shrill screams of “Crisis” thrown out casually by those who profit greatly from the lies, half-truths & misconceptions they sell, kind of like the old Snake Oil Peddlers of days gone by.

Who says its “undue delay?” The arrogant & ignorant assumptions you have bought into makes an a out of all of us!

“Indefinite questioning” is far better than throwing BILLIONS OF $$$$$$$$ down the toilet for unproven & probably totally false, junk science!! Why not spend the Billions of $$$$ to feed, educate & provide health care for the most vulnerable among us!

Jesus taught us; "And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ (Mt 25:40)**

i, for one, do not want to stand alone in front of Jesus at my Particular Judgment, and have to answer "I bought carbon offsets from ALGORE instead of feeding the starving children of the planet or saving just one innocent, helpless baby from abortion!!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both “the human environment” and the natural environment.
–U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, June 2001
THE CURRENT POLITICAL DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES The politics of global climate change is fueled by divergent perceptions of the economic, social, and political costs. While fewer still question the basic science of climate change, there is a debate about proposed solutions and their associated costs. Some fear that moving too fast will cripple economic growth across the globe. Others fear that waiting too long will necessitate more drastic measures later. Poorer countries blame richer ones for creating the problem in the first place. Richer countries spar over goals and procedures and increasingly want the poorer countries to fully participate.
During the coming year, global climate change is likely to gain greater traction for several reasons: (1) the next International Panel on Climate Change—the official body established by the UN and the World Meteorological Association to review the science of climate change—will issue its next report in the spring of 2007; (2) the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate the emissions of CO2 under the Clean Air Act; and (3) the new leadership of the Congress is talking about doing more on the issue.
Congress is likely to focus on several key issues: (1) voluntary versus mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions; (2) focusing on mitigation (preventive measures) or adaptation (better disaster planning); and (3) addressing selected sectors that are responsible for emitting higher levels of harmful emissions, like transportation and automobile fuel efficiency, or all sectors, including energy production and agriculture. Since the plight of the poor and the relationship between poverty and climate change are not likely to be principal concerns in the legislative process, USCCB will make this concern primary in reviewing and commenting upon legislation.
For the first time, the House is likely to take up the issue. The Speaker is establishing a special Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and has instructed relevant Committee chairs to prepare legislation for floor consideration by June. In the Senate, where most of the action has previously taken place, there is a lot of activity. Senators Lieberman (I-CT), McCain (R-AZ), Boxer (D-CA), Feinstein (D-CA) and Bingaman (D-NM) have introduced legislative proposals or draft bills. In both chambers, no action or votes are expected until summer. Since there is not yet a consensus on any particular approach, it will not be easy to craft the compromises necessary to address the issues outlined above. There will most likely be a number of hearings this year, but analysts do not expect a comprehensive bill to emerge immediately. Some suggest that at this stage of debate various aspects of climate change will be dealt with in a series of separate bills, rather than a more sweeping or comprehensive bill.
3211 Fourth St., NE. Washington, DC 20017. Tel: (202)541-3160 Fax: (202)541-3339
 
USCCB POLICY POSITION In their June 2001 statement, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, the bishops note: “Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious … Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.” The statement also calls for a less polarized public debate and more focus on the global common good. The bishops call for thoughtful dialogue that relies on the political virtue of prudence. Prudence is not simply a cautious and safe approach, but rather a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good.
Specifically, USCCB supports strong U.S. leadership and advocates for much greater assistance to the developing nations, particularly in providing economic development aid to enable poorer countries to adopt state-of-the-art technology. The centerpiece of USCCB’s efforts on climate change will be to focus attention on the needs of the poor as they will suffer disproportionately from the potential impacts of climate change. The bishops also call for greater emphasis on energy conservation, the development of renewable and clean energy resources, and assistance to industries and workers displaced during the transition to new and more benign energy production.
The bishops’ primary concern in the current public debate is that the needs of poor people and developing nations be addressed. These countries have a right to economic development that reduces poverty. Poorer countries cannot be made to bear an undue burden of the global adjustments needed to address climate change. USCCB supports legislative provisions to assist the poor and adversely affected communities in mitigating the effects of global warming in the U.S. and developing countries. These measures must include additional foreign aid for sustainable development as well as technological assistance in adopting more benign and efficient energy production. On March 13, 2006, Bishop Wenski wrote to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources expressing these concerns in preparation for the Committee’s Climate Conference held on April 4, 2006.
ACTION REQUESTED
Contact your Senators and Congressional representatives to urge greater U.S. leadership to address climate change and especially its disproportionate impact on the poor and vulnerable people here and abroad. We also strongly urge you to assist your bishop in sending a cover letter and a copy of the bishops’ statement, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, to your members in both the House and Senate.
For further information: Walt Grazer 202-541-3182 (ph); 202-541-3339 (fax); wgrazer@usccb.org; Roxana Barillas 202-541-3445, rbarillas@usccb.org, Dan Misleh 301-322-1180, danmisleh@msn.org; usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/publicpolicy/index.htm
 
There is always either blobal warming or global cooling. There is always climate change. Theya re givens.

The theory that the current changes are man made is explicable only an an anti Christian impulse. It is a curious and toxic admixture of Humanism and Gaia worship. Humanism inasmuch as man’s solipsism is now such that we believe we created God, Such solipsism easily finds itself believeing we create the climate as well. Add to that a post Christian belief in anything at all finding expression in a regression to Earth Mother worship.

The belief in man made global warming is the bizarre bastard child of these ill matched parents sharing only an aversion for Christianity.
 
The belief in man made global warming is the bizarre bastard child of these ill matched parents sharing only an aversion for Christianity.
I have never heard someone suggest that environmental science is Anti-Catholic. I have heard lots of uniformed people suggest that science in general is Anti-Catholic, but that claim is usually dismissed as nonsense.

Would you suggest that the fact that HFC’s can destroy the ozone is Anti-Catholic, or that moves taken to fix the HFC problem back in the '80’s was an anti-Catholic plot too?

-wade
 
I have never heard someone suggest that environmental science is Anti-Catholic. I have heard lots of uniformed people suggest that science in general is Anti-Catholic, but that claim is usually dismissed as nonsense.

Would you suggest that the fact that HFC’s can destroy the ozone is Anti-Catholic, or that moves taken to fix the HFC problem back in the '80’s was an anti-Catholic plot too?

-wade
If I had said that science was anti catholic you would have a point but giving that I didn’t mention either science or catholicism I think you are jumping the gun rather.

I said that both humanism and Gaia worship are anti Christian. They are. I implied that a mix of both currents is largely the psychological grounding for thosechoosing to believe in manmade global warming - a contention for which there is no scientific unanimity. I am almost certainly correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top