Holy See: moral imperative to act in face of climate change [CWN]

[estesbob]

That does not answer my question.

You claimed he must have above average scientific knowledge. I just wondered if that knowledge included the fact there has been no warming this century. one would think for AGW to be correct there would have to be some warming taking place.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A false choice.

It has to be one or the other. Either the Cardinal is right or he is wrong.

What I did intend to suggest is what I said:
a. That we really don’t know what his sources of information are, but that if he truly believes there are no significant contrary studies or opinions, he’s not as well informed as he could be. I daresay that anyone who has followed the endless competition of opinions, charts and graphs for years on CAF is likely to have seen more competitive views than has the cardinal. Had he seen them, I doubt he would be asserting that there are essentially none. Undoubtedly he was telling the truth about his information level. But if he thinks there are no significant competing views, he is simply not sufficiently informed.

The quantity of competing charts and graphs is not a measure of the validity of their claims. The trouble is the word “significant” highlighted above. Who is to say that those contrary studies or opinions are significant? Are all opinions equally significant?

b. That since the political outfall from the MMGW doomsaying can harm people (and is virtually certain to do so) a churchman ought to consider how those chips might land before jumping on any highly politicized bandwagon, however well-meaning the leap might be. Support for a political movement is support for the political measures that follow.

As estesbob pointed out, the Cardinal did not endorse or recommend any specific political measure.

Likely the good cardinal did not consider that any more than the churchmen did who promoted Obamacare before realizing the evil that was going to be done with it.

I still think it remarkable that armchair observers here on CAF are able to see things so much more clearly than the Vatican representative who was specifically tasked with addressing this issue.

Let me add that the people who are pushing MMGW remedies do not necessarily care at all how much they harm people. Certainly, their lives (e.g. Obama, Gates, Kennedy, Gore, Buffett) suggest that either they don’t believe in MMGW themselves or, believing in it, do not care what happens to others as a consequence of “mitigation” strategies they have in mind which serve them politically or financially. There is no reason to believe the cardinal was aware of that.

Since his message was not directed at specific remedies or programs, there is no reason he should take into account the personal moral failings of some proponents of mitigation measures. When considering the question of the moral imperative to address climate change, what Gates or Buffett are doing is irrelevant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You claimed he must have above average scientific knowledge. I just wondered if that knowledge included the fact there has been no warming this century. one would think for AGW to be correct there would have to be some warming taking place.

I claimed nothing. I merely asked which is more likely - that the Cardinal is not as aware of the science as armchair observers on CAF, or the Cardinal is more aware of the science as armchair observers on CAF. It is very simple question. And someone’s answer to that question ought to be consistent with their treatment of the Cardinal’s statement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well climate change IS an important issue. BUT here the Vatican has a nice chance to speak at a UN summit…and the UN has a LOT of issues we need to address…such as their hostility towards national sovereignty, and catholic morals. SO why not address that?

Those issues are addressed at the appropriate time and place. A climate change summit is not the place to make a speech about things unrelated to climate change.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has to be one or the other. Either the Cardinal is right or he is wrong.

The quantity of competing charts and graphs is not a measure of the validity of their claims. The trouble is the word “significant” highlighted above. Who is to say that those contrary studies or opinions are significant? Are all opinions equally significant?

As estesbob pointed out, the Cardinal did not endorse or recommend any specific political measure.

I still think it remarkable that armchair observers here on CAF are able to see things so much more clearly than the Vatican representative who was specifically tasked with addressing this issue.

Since his message was not directed at specific remedies or programs, there is no reason he should take into account the personal moral failings of some proponents of mitigation measures. When considering the question of the moral imperative to address climate change, what Gates or Buffett are doing is irrelevant.

What the politicians and investors who support them are doing with a movement is entirely relevant because political actions affect lives.

Since neither you nor I have any idea at all what sources of information the cardinal had, or what instructions, if any, he had from anyone else in the Church, neither of us can say that he was better or worse informed than some of the people on CAF who have massively presented information gathered from all kinds of sources. I think it’s probably fair to say that the cardinal has duties as Secretary of State that take most of his time and it’s entirely possible he spends less time studying MMGW than some of the people on here who actually are scientific people.

But again, I use the example of Obamacare. My concern when churchmen get on board with a political movement is that they may not take into full account what harms the lay politicos may have in store for their fellow men, and which they, the churchmen, may be unwittingly serving in underwriting the premises of the political movement.

 

[estesbob]

I claimed nothing. I merely asked which is more likely - that the Cardinal is not as aware of the science as armchair observers on CAF, or the Cardinal is more aware of the science as armchair observers on CAF. It is very simple question. And someone’s answer to that question ought to be consistent with their treatment of the Cardinal’s statement.

None of us have any idea what the depth of his scientific knowledge is. He gave no details, he gave no solutions. It was pretty much a boiler plate speech.

 

[GenerationZ]

Well climate change IS an important issue. BUT here the Vatican has a nice chance to speak at a UN summit…and the UN has a LOT of issues we need to address…such as their hostility towards national sovereignty, and catholic morals. SO why not address that?

Because so many people, Catholics included, deny the reality of climate change, and such denial threatens the entire globe if this issue remains unaddressed. Citizens of the world apparently need to be reminded of the reality of the situation. I think it’s great that the Vatican is using its credibility to fight the lies perpetuated by the corrupt and misguided. People will have to chose whether they trust science and the Vatican or if instead their loyalties lie with those who have a political and financial interest in pursuits that harm the planet.

It’s a sad day when supposed followers of the faith question the wisdom of the Catholic Church, favoring instead to cling to propaganda. The threat of climate change is very much real, and the Church is right caution against this threat. Those who support the unchecked ruination of this planet seemingly do not respect God’s handiwork, or else they wouldn’t be turning a blind eye to the abuses inflicted upon it. If they think that humankind can do whatever they want to this planet without any consequences, they are sorely mistaken.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What the politicians and investors who support them are doing with a movement is entirely relevant because political actions affect lives.

I should not have said “irrelevant” in general. What I should have said was these facts are irrelevant to the pure moral imperative question that the Cardinal was addressing. Remember he was not endorsing any movement.

Since neither you nor I have any idea at all what sources of information the cardinal had, or what instructions, if any, he had from anyone else in the Church, neither of us can say that he was better or worse informed than some of the people on CAF who have massively presented information gathered from all kinds of sources. I think it’s probably fair to say that the cardinal has duties as Secretary of State that take most of his time and it’s entirely possible he spends less time studying MMGW than some of the people on here who actually are scientific people.

So is it your conclusion that the cardinal was extremely likely to have been underinformed? I doubt that he relied on his own “spare time” research to formulate his message. The Vatican has people paying very close attention to all aspects of science. Consider the Vatican Observatory, for example. Do you think it likely that the Cardinal eschewed all the potential in-house expertise available to him and just decided to go it alone? I don’t think so.

But again, I use the example of Obamacare. My concern when churchmen get on board with a political movement is that they may not take into full account what harms the lay politicos may have in store for their fellow men, and which they, the churchmen, may be unwittingly serving in underwriting the premises of the political movement.

And again I remind you that the cardinal specifically did not get on board with a political movement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those issues are addressed at the appropriate time and place. A climate change summit is not the place to make a speech about things unrelated to climate change.

You’re correct, at least in a way. It would not have been yet one more reiteration of the conventional wisdom that nobody really lives by anyway.

However, wouldn’t it have been stirring had the cardinal affirmed that MMGW is a legitimate concern for thoughtful people, but that there are much greater evils abroad in the world, like the slaughter of the innocents, not vaguely threatening someday or other, but going on right now and all around us?

I’m put to mind of Solzhenitsyn’s speech at Harvard. It wasn’t at all what his listeners expected, and was despised by many because he took the occasion to spotlight the corruption that was hollowing out an undeservedly complacent west. But Harvard and, indeed the whole country, badly needed to hear it even so.

Mother Teresa was given to such utterances as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

None of us have any idea what the depth of his scientific knowledge is. He gave no details, he gave no solutions.

No, but he did call for serious consideration of the problem, which is a lot more than many here on CAF are willing to do.

It was pretty much a boiler plate speech.

Boiler plate normally means “standard”. If it was a standard speech, like those that are given all the time, no one would be commenting on it here on CAF. I think the fact that this thread exists is evidence enough that it was more than “boiler plate”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re correct, at least in a way. It would not have been yet one more reiteration of the conventional wisdom that nobody really lives by anyway.

However, wouldn’t it have been stirring had the cardinal affirmed that MMGW is a legitimate concern for thoughtful people, but that there are much greater evils abroad in the world, like the slaughter of the innocents, not vaguely threatening someday or other, but going on right now and all around us?

Yes, that would have been commendable. But that does not mean we have to criticize him for** not** doing it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I should not have said “irrelevant” in general. What I should have said was these facts are irrelevant to the pure moral imperative question that the Cardinal was addressing. Remember he was not endorsing any movement.

So is it your conclusion that the cardinal was extremely likely to have been underinformed? I doubt that he relied on his own “spare time” research to formulate his message. The Vatican has people paying very close attention to all aspects of science. Consider the Vatican Observatory, for example. Do you think it likely that the Cardinal eschewed all the potential in-house expertise available to him and just decided to go it alone? I don’t think so.

And again I remind you that the cardinal specifically did not get on board with a political movement.

As I said, neither you nor I have the slightest idea what information the cardinal had or didn’t have. None at all. But his seeming assumption that there are no competing voices or studies or, indeed, events inconsistent with the theory, is troubling.

No, the cardinal did not say “Obama’s right, we need to make the utility bills of the poor and the elderly skyrocket, make food more expensive and destroy jobs.” But in supporting the foundational bases for the political movement that will inevitably have those results, he’s supporting the political consequences. Did he know that? Neither of us know whether he did or didn’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Boiler plate normally means “standard”. If it was a standard speech, like those that are given all the time, no one would be commenting on it here on CAF. I think the fact that this thread exists is evidence enough that it was more than “boiler plate”.

No it isn’t.

The existence of this thread proves only that some people believe it makes their cause more persuasive if they can quote a churchman who seems to be in support of it.

C’mon, you know that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, that would have been commendable. But that does not mean we have to criticize him for** not** doing it.

I didn’t say I was criticizing him for not taking the occasion to deliver a real challenge to those who see slaughter all around them and choose to ignore it. I was responding to your criticism of another poster who wished he had.

And it could have been stirring and as dramatic perhaps as Solzhenitsyn at Harvard. Could have been.

That’s all I was saying.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As I said, neither you nor I have the slightest idea what information the cardinal had or didn’t have. None at all. But his seeming assumption that there are no competing voices or studies or, indeed, events inconsistent with the theory, is troubling.

It is only troubling if you give equal weight to all opinions about the science.

No, the cardinal did not say “Obama’s right, we need to make the utility bills of the poor and the elderly skyrocket, make food more expensive and destroy jobs.” But in supporting the foundational bases for the political movement that will inevitably have those results, he’s supporting the political consequences. Did he know that? Neither of us know whether he did or didn’t.

We may never do evil that good may come of it. It may be that in suppressing the truth that climate change is a real concern, we might prevent some politician from enacting the harmful measures you mentioned. That is a good thing. But if climate change is a real concern, the means for achieving that good thing was an assault on the Truth. That would be evil. So it all comes back to whether or not it is the Truth. If the cardinal was thinking according to Catholic morality, the Truth is more important than the consequences.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t say I was criticizing him for not taking the occasion to deliver a real challenge to those who see slaughter all around them and choose to ignore it. I was responding to your criticism of another poster who wished he had.

Understood. It was ialsop, who first raised the idea in post #2, which looked to me to be a bit stronger than a “wish”.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

However, wouldn’t it have been stirring had the cardinal affirmed that MMGW is a legitimate concern for thoughtful people, but that there are much greater evils abroad in the world, like the slaughter of the innocents, not vaguely threatening someday or other, but going on right now and all around us?

There are more things going on in the world than abortion. Frankly, people are tired of hearing about it and no one cares. Mostly its just a source of irritation because some people feel compelled to start talking about abortion in the middle of an entirely unrelated topic of conversation. Pope Francis gets that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is only troubling if you give equal weight to all opinions about the science.

We may never do evil that good may come of it. It may be that in suppressing the truth that climate change is a real concern, we might prevent some politician from enacting the harmful measures you mentioned. That is a good thing. But if climate change is a real concern, the means for achieving that good thing was an assault on the Truth. That would be evil. So it all comes back to whether or not it is the Truth. If the cardinal was thinking according to Catholic morality, the Truth is more important than the consequences.

As a non-scientist, but as one who can usually recognize the difference between derivative information and original research, it is impossible to do anything other than recognize that some who claim one side have their facts, figures and graphs while those who claim the other side do as well. Very few people, I suspect, can genuinely recognize what ought to be given more weight and what less. There are also problems with the “spin” aspect of it. As I said, I’m not a scientist, but long ago I was in banking and I know that with the slightest tweak here and there one can make a business look solvent or hopelessly insolvent. Even a bank, and even highly trained regulators are often fooled. It’s like surveying in a way. If you deviate a fraction of an inch at the beginning, you can be miles wrong if you go far enough. And oftentimes it’s difficult to detect that fraction of an inch. Nevertheless, sometimes that deviation is discovered and it throws every conclusion derived from it into a cocked hat.

And we know for absolute certain that this administration has spent enormous sums of money; far more that the “fuel villains” have, on funding MMGW “research”, and has thrown huge sums at political favorites who engage in “alternative energy” technologies. The last figure I saw for the combinaion was $200 billion. That’s a lot of money, and it can gain a lot of agreement.

So why should I give the “pro” side more credence than the “con” side? Because it’s presently fashionable to be “pro”? Because people like DiCaprio tout it but then burn incredible amounts of fuel in a 500 foot yacht? Am I supposed to be a believer when Obama is accompanied by several jets and ships to Africa for his entertainment and has round-the-clock jet fighter protection the whole time, then tells us that our utility bills need to “skyrocket” because of CO2 emissions?

And, of course, I, who spend a great deal of my time outdoors and, due to part of my occupation, have to pay very minute attention to seasons, weather, flora and fauna, water tables and surface flows, and see no difference at all from my childhood except that it’s less hot and dry than it was for a good part of it, am supposed to believe that, well, there really is global warming even though the atmospheric temps are going nowhere because the warmth is hiding somewhere? I’m supposed to give that greater credence than those who say it’s not when my experience confirms the latter rather than the former?

And the last part of the above is a near tautology. You say it’s the cardinal’s job to tell the truth, therefore he had to tell us global warming threatens disaster. But the premise, that MMGW theories are the truth, is assumed. In short, we have to accept an assertion that something’s the truth because it’s assumed to be the truth in the proposition.

It seems, instead, to me that when one sees a contested theory of disaster (and there are all sorts of them; overpopulation, EMP, mutated airborne Ebola, worthlessness of the dollar, on and on) and knows for sure that politicians’ and investors’ strategies for “dealing with it” will cause a great deal of human hardship, but enrich the promoters, it seems to me the truth one sees with one’s own eyes and feels on one’s own skin trumps one that depends on the ginning of computer models that don’t seem to actually be predictive.

Finally, it seems to me that when churchmen adopt one side of a contested and very politicized fact pattern and make pronouncements based on it, and when the political proponents are going to cause human hardship, such churchmen ought to be more wary than they oftentimes are. Again, early on they didn’t foresee forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortifacients either when they went all giddy over “universal healthcare”. One would think “once bitten, twice shy”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are more things going on in the world than abortion. Frankly, people are tired of hearing about it and no one cares. Mostly its just a source of irritation because some people feel compelled to start talking about abortion in the middle of an entirely unrelated topic of conversation. Pope Francis gets that.

Try to imagine how little I care that some people are tired of hearing about abortion. Some people are less so, and the polls seem to demonstrate that. What if the cardinal, by being bold and non-topical, had saved five lives? One life? Fifty thousand lives?

One might stop and realize that I was not speaking only of abortion, by the way. There is a lot of other slaughtering of innocents going on. There’s nothing theoretical about hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered in the Middle East any more than there is about a million babies a year being killed in the United States alone. Those things are real and they’re now. But why pay attention to the reality of mass killing today when we can theorize about the earth being turned into a toasted marshmallow someday or other (and the “somedays” vary a lot) blame that theoretical doomsday on people who would rather be warm in the winter than cold, and resolve to force them to be cold because they can’t afford to be warm?

 

[lynnvinc]

There are more things going on in the world than abortion. Frankly, people are tired of hearing about it and no one cares. Mostly its just a source of irritation because some people feel compelled to start talking about abortion in the middle of an entirely unrelated topic of conversation. Pope Francis gets that.

I’m thinking another consideration is that many good people are not having abortions and are against abortion, but we are all to some extent or other contributing to AGW.

I think that is the real reason people are against accepting it, bec it means they would have to take responsibility to reduce their GHG emissions.

It is so much easier and more pleasant to point the finger at other people’s sins – such as those going in for abortion – than to do the hard work of looking at ourselves and our own flaws.

AGW is unlike other environmental problems where we could simply blame polluting companies. We are all perpetrators of AGW, and more and more of us are or will become victims, and it will fall very heavily on our children and their children on into the future.

That is another reason people may not want to face it…it would mean they are not good parents for allowing such harm to their children.

It pretty much boils down to “I, me, and myself,” and unreasonable fears of having one’s wealth and liberty taken away (as if AGW will not be taking these away to a much greater extent).