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

[Ridgerunner]

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).

Possibly worse than pointing the finger at other peoples’ sins is to invent sins to attribute to them, which “sins” are only opinions contrary to one’s own political beliefs.

Supporting abortion is inherently sinful, and against the clear teachings of the Church. Disbelieving in catastrophic global warming is not.

 

[lynnvinc]

Strawman argument. No climate scientist ever said there would be “dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades.” Climate change takes a long time and there is a long lag time between emissions and impact on climate. Perhaps the author (who doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about) is referring to reaching tipping points. That may certainly happen within 20 years, or it may already have happened. That is the point at which we will be unable to reverse course, but will be drawn into a different, more life-inhospitable climate (slowly over the decades, centuries, and millennia…nothing to worry about tomorrow).

Because of the lag time, one study by 2 climate scientists estimates that with current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere there is 2.4C warming “in the pipes” in the long run as it plays out, even if we halt all emissions today. That much warming would virtually commit the system to melting methane now locked in ice permafrost and ocean hydrates, causing the warming to spiral out of control.

Let’s just hope that study is wrong and we actually do have some 10 or 20 years within which to drastically reduce our GHGs.

But even if correct, the main harms will not be on this generation, but on those to come. So no need to run away from rising seas…you’ll be able to vastly outrun those, since that will take 100s and 1000s of years to get to 10, 20, 60 feet above current levels.

“…The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.”
online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

Such a ridiculous statement. IF AGW had stopped then temps would be back down to pre-1980s levels.

Please report back to me in 20 years whether or not the globally averaged temp has indeed gone back down to pre-1980s levels.

Meanwhile, don’t be so impatient. No climate scientist ever predicted the temps would rise in a strictly increasing straight-line pattern. They are well aware of many factors impacting GW that makes is go up & down in a saw-blade pattern, with that blade angled upward due to GW.

In fact they had documented that warming has not paused, but actually continued in the deeper oceans and due to some increase in ocean overturn, the surface temps (and thus atmospheric temps) have remained roughly steady for the past 15 or so years. Since those are the temps they use (sea surface and land-atmospheric) to document GW, those temps “mask” the actual continued warming. (BTW they have always known the deeper oceans play a big roll in the warming, but they don’t ordinarily use those temps to document it on the whole, since they only have good data on deeper ocean temps since the 1960s).

It’s always best to consult climate science for information about climate science and NOT the Wall Street Journal. Newspapers often make mistakes, but rarely print retractions, unlike science, which is rigorously scrutinized thru peer-review.

The climate science on AGW is quite “robust,” supported by 10,000s of peer-reviewed studies from all different angles.

They’ll let you know if they find out something new. Climate scientists are a very competitive, highly intelligent and educated bunch and would love to disprove the others.

 

[lynnvinc]

Possibly worse than pointing the finger at other peoples’ sins is to invent sins to attribute to them, which “sins” are only opinions contrary to one’s own political beliefs.

Supporting abortion is inherently sinful, and against the clear teachings of the Church. Disbelieving in catastrophic global warming is not.

No question about it that having abortions is a much worse sin (as is killing gas station attendants during robberies) than contributing to AGW.

However, I have not had an abortion nor have I killed a gas station attendant, but I am contributing to AGW thru my GHG emissions. So that is what I have to address and look at in my personal life (along with many other sins I’m committing, it seems, ALL the time ).

So I would suggest to all people here and around the world, in the name of God and His Son Jesus Christ STOP HAVING ABORTIONS, STOP KILLING GAS STATION ATTENDANTS. Once you have ceased and desisted from those and other extremely heinous acts (or even while reducing those acts) give some consideration to the harms and deaths you are contributing to others around the world and on into the distant future thru your GHG emission contributions to AGW, and strive to reduce those as much as feasible, at least the cost-effective measures that do not reduce your living standards.

There. I’ve put it in proper order and perspective

 

[ringil]

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.

Well, isn’t this approach evident on nearly every issue to come up?

Those supporting the death penalty bring up a quote from Cardinal Dulles.
Those stating that a Catholic cannot vote for a Democrat cite Burke and Chaput.

What’s the difference? Does it only jive if related to right-leaning stances?

And then if we don’t like what the Pope or a Churchmen says we can just go . . . . “prudential judgement”.

 

[jimmy]

It is unequivocal since the second half of the last century, except the last 25 years of course, that the planet is warming.

What would everyone say if the UN said, ‘in order to combat global climate change we encourage each country to adopt a one child policy similar to that of china.’? Liberals love to jump on the bandwagon but what is your solution? When they start pushing population control or policies that hurt the average man are you going to be behind it shouting in support?

 

[lynnvinc]

It is unequivocal since the second half of the last century, except the last 25 years of course, that the planet is warming.

What would everyone say if the UN said, ‘in order to combat global climate change we encourage each country to adopt a one child policy similar to that of china.’? Liberals love to jump on the bandwagon but what is your solution? When they start pushing population control or policies that hurt the average man are you going to be behind it shouting in support?

Here’s my suggestion – celibacy, chastity, and forgoing fornication. That ought to do it if and when the human population starts exceeding earth’s carrying capacity. We have a long way to go to reach that point, but I would suggest meanwhile NOT living it up in sin. Also meanwhile, we could solve the hunger crisis in the world in this time just by a more equitable, at least more thoughtful, distribution of food resources; I think it was Pope Francis who said that the amount of food the rich of the world throw away is enough to end starvation in the world.

I would most certainly not suggest wars, diseases, or abortions as population control measures.

One of the things I point out to non-Catholic environmentalists, some of whom may be pro-choice – it’s illogical to kill children in order to save the world for children, and I’ve gotten some positive response to that. They seem to get it that abortion is illogical (as well as immoral) from an environmentalist point of view.

OTOH, when I point out to non-environmentalist Catholics that it makes no sense to be pro-life, against abortion, but for killing people thru environmental harms. The responses I usually get is “There are no environmental problems. We are not harming and killing people thru environmental harms. It’s not direct.” (Well, yes, most of our involvement in environmental harms is not direct and we don’t have a lot of control over it (at the most we have the power of boycott and “buy-cott”), but some of it is direct.)

It is so much easier to point the finger at other people’s harming and killing than to look inward at ourselves – speck and plank. My children’s choir master told us (when we felt the choir had unjustly been disbanded), “when you point a finger at someone, you are pointing 3 fingers back at yourself,” and he then pointed his figure and showed us those 3 fingers pointing back. I didn’t accept that lesson then at age 12, but as an adult I have come to appreciate it very much.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…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 combination was $200 billion. That’s a lot of money, and it can gain a lot of agreement.

If I understand your argument correctly, the fact that the government has invested heavily in MMGW research and in alternative energy technologies is supposed to be evidence that the threat posed by global warming is a hoax. Well, if we apply Occam’s Razor and ask for the simplest and most direct explanation of those facts, it would be that the government is investing in that research because they sincerely believe that global warming may be a serious threat and is worth researching. Why is it necessary to posit a conspiracy when no more direct evidence of that conspiracy exists? If the government decided to spend heavily to fund the fight against Ebola, no one would say that is evidence that the threat posed by Ebola is a hoax.

 

[ucfengr]

I’m wondering if someone can help me. I’m a Bond-ian supervillian with a plan to take over the world by flooding Washington DC and London. Can someone please tell exactly how much CO2 I would need to pump into the atmosphere to put DC and London underwater? Thanks.

 

[Scottgun]

If I understand your argument correctly, the fact that the government has invested heavily in MMGW research and in alternative energy technologies is supposed to be evidence that the threat posed by global warming is a hoax. Well, if we apply Occam’s Razor and ask for the simplest and most direct explanation of those facts, it would be that the government is investing in that research because they sincerely believe that global warming may be a serious threat and is worth researching. Why is it necessary to posit a conspiracy when no more direct evidence of that conspiracy exists? If the government decided to spend heavily to fund the fight against Ebola, no one would say that is evidence that the threat posed by Ebola is a hoax.

Because you don’t have to believe it is a conspiracy. Organizations compete for grant money, of this is there is no doubt. They get that grant money often by being the squeakiest wheel. It’s not a conspiracy of fraud, but simply a case where they have nothing to win and everything to lose by saying everything is hunky dory, give someone else studying a more pressing issue the money you would have given us.

Ebola has tangible evidence–people sickening and dying. Global Warmers…err…Climate Changers are always quick to tell us that observable weather is no guide to what the climate is doing. Just trust us.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because you don’t have to believe it is a conspiracy. Organizations compete for grant money, of this is there is no doubt. They get that grant money often by being the squeakiest wheel. It’s not a conspiracy of fraud, but simply a case where they have nothing to win and everything to lose by saying everything is hunky dory, give someone else studying a more pressing issue the money you would have given us.

But it would be fraud to report deliberately misleading results. And if the results are that easily challenged, the organization will likely be found out and discredited. And there go any chances for future research. No, I think that defies Occam’s Razor too. The most straightforward thing for a research organization to do is uphold its reputation for accuracy by being accurate. They do have a lot to lose by falsely reporting results.

 

[estesbob]

But it would be fraud to report deliberately misleading results. And if the results are that easily challenged, the organization will likely be found out and discredited. And there go any chances for future research. No, I think that defies Occam’s Razor too. The most straightforward thing for a research organization to do is uphold its reputation for accuracy by being accurate. They do have a lot to lose by falsely reporting results.

Actually as the East Anglia emails showed they did falsify data and have an active campaign to shut off debate. But if people want to takes steps to personally mitigate the “problem” that is their right-just as long as they don’t expect the rest of us to join in the charade

 

[Scottgun]

But it would be fraud to report deliberately misleading results. And if the results are that easily challenged, the organization will likely be found out and discredited. And there go any chances for future research. No, I think that defies Occam’s Razor too. The most straightforward thing for a research organization to do is uphold its reputation for accuracy by being accurate. They do have a lot to lose by falsely reporting results.

You can plot the points and then draw the graph and truly believe you are doing good science even though it isn’t and not be guilty of fraud.

 

[Scottgun]

Actually as the East Anglia emails showed they did falsify data and have an active campaign to shut off debate. But if people want to takes steps to personally mitigate the “problem” that is their right-just as long as they don’t expect the rest of us to join in the charade

Indeed. I’ve heard lots of people want to take this off the table along with the refusal to comply with FOI requests. I’ve even heard people poison the well by saying, “don’t listen to anyone talking about hockey sticks”. It reminds me of this part from Liar Liar:

youtu.be/Dx32b5igLwA

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually as the East Anglia emails showed they did falsify data and have an active campaign to shut off debate

Whenever you have this many people working in research, it is not surprising to find some instances of unethical behavior. The fact that some people did this does not mean the problem is endemic, as you apparently believe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can plot the points and then draw the graph and truly believe you are doing good science even though it isn’t and not be guilty of fraud.

Well, if it is not fraud, it is incompetence. What reason do you have to believe that those doing climate research are incompetent? Or do you think all scientists are incompetent?

 

[estesbob]

Well, if it is not fraud, it is incompetence. What reason do you have to believe that those doing climate research are incompetent? Or do you think all scientists are incompetent?

I believe AGW alarmism will hurt the credibility of scientists for generations.
storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

 

[Scottgun]

Well, if it is not fraud, it is incompetence. What reason do you have to believe that those doing climate research are incompetent? Or do you think all scientists are incompetent?

I don’t exactly know what it is. I do know that we’ve been asked to trust them in spite of what our senses tell us, but I’m always less willing to give full trust to someone aping Christianity by spinning a narrative of Guilt & Redemption. This is why I think that many Catholics are suckers for this stuff.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t exactly know what it is. I do know that we’ve been asked to trust them in spite of what our senses tell us, but I’m always less willing to give full trust to someone aping Christianity by spinning a narrative of Guilt & Redemption. This is why I think that many Catholics are suckers for this stuff.

Did you ever get the feeling that buying Carbon credits was akin to buying indulgences?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe AGW alarmism will hurt the credibility of scientists for generations.

Well, if you believe it, don’t you think the climate scientists believe it too? (Unless you are positing that their powers of reasoning are far inferior to your own.) They have all the incentive in the world to avoid that outcome and be accurate in the first place. I can’t believe that they all suffered a simultaneous lapse of judgement and threw away their chance of having a good reputation all for the sake of some temporary notoriety. Or…what. I never did hear what the motive was supposed to be for all these scientists to be so careless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t exactly know what it is. I do know that we’ve been asked to trust them in spite of what our senses tell us.

Your senses? You are putting up you own personal senses of observations you make in your backyard against scientific research with satellites and a world-wide network of temperature monitoring stations? To detect less than 1 degree C change within your lifetime? Wow, your senses must be phenomenal.