How should a Catholic view USCCB's statement on US withdrawal from Paris agreement

[josh987654321]

the Church is open and responding to scientific evidence.

Which is exactly the problem, The Church is not an expert on Science, we do not look to the Church for the latest in science. We look to the Church for it’s expertise on scripture, not science.

As far as evidence goes, there is none, most people are sitting on the fence (including myself) because they don’t know, the evidence I have seen have all been simply appeals to authority and scare tactics.

We have not even been recording temperatures long enough to jump to these conclusions. What do you make of the Ice Age? Could this not be part of a larger cycle? Our sun is also expanding, as it will eventually become a red giant, which could also make sense for the rise in temperature.

Climate Change is also filled with people who believe in over population, which always leads to evil practices.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

This is quite the opposite of how the Church responded to Galileo. In the case of global warming, the Church is open and responding to scientific evidence. It is the dissenters who are not open to change.

It’s exactly the same as Galileo, you only think it’s different because you think your on the ‘winning side’, the fact of the matter is that the Church is not there to provide us with the latest in Science, but rather to provide us with their expertise of the Scriptures.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[lynnvinc]

According to Thomas Reese, SJ…
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/does-pope-francis-have-masters-degree-chemistry
…we can say his science education was “…quite a bit better … than what we’d find in a North American high school.”

Which would work re understanding the greenhouse effect. I was in high school in the early 60s when I read a book that covered (summarized) quite a bit of science re the universe and our planet – KNOWLEDGE AND WONDER by Victor Weisskopf.

From it I learned about the natural greenhouse effect, without which our lives on earth would be impossible. It may have also mentioned the potential for anthropogenic global warming since scientists have been predicting such for nearly 200 years, but I can’t remember. Then when global warming came to public attention in the late 1980s, I didn’t have any difficulty understanding it.

 

[mrdrifter]

Which would work re understanding the greenhouse effect. I was in high school in the early 60s when I read a book that covered (summarized) quite a bit of science re the universe and our planet – KNOWLEDGE AND WONDER by Victor Weisskopf.

From it I learned about the natural greenhouse effect, without which our lives on earth would be impossible. It may have also mentioned the potential for anthropogenic global warming since scientists have been predicting such for nearly 200 years, but I can’t remember. Then when global warming came to public attention in the late 1980s, I didn’t have any difficulty understanding it.

Ah so, the ignorance is settled.

 

[pnewton]

As far as evidence goes, there is none,…

I think this says it all about climate skeptics.

 

[pnewton]

It’s exactly the same as Galileo, you only think it’s different because you think your on the ‘winning side’, the fact of the matter is that the Church is not there to provide us with the latest in Science, but rather to provide us with their expertise of the Scriptures.

I said why it was not. There is not “winning” side, though I admit I do not know exactly how that word could apply, since there is no contest. All you did was just reaffirm your opinion, not explain why I am wrong. By your logic, the Church should have no position on abortion, as she lacks the expertise in the field of anatomy and neurology to be able to say when life begins.

 

[pnewton]

I am curious as to what science people find the inability to accept. The existence of atoms since they can’t be seen? The existence of carbon dioxide? The way in which carbon dioxide is formed? Is it basic chemistry? Is it that the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Do some believe that somehow with fewer trees that somehow carbon dioxide is removed quicker from the atmosphere. Is the existence of “ozone” fake news? I don’t understand why there is so much skepticism.

I understand Ridgerunner’s argument that we have to weigh the negative impact of climate control actions against any possible benefits. I do not get ignoring a hard science like chemistry.

 

[pnewton]

We have not even been recording temperatures long enough to jump to these conclusions. What do you make of the Ice Age? Could this not be part of a larger cycle? Our sun is also expanding, as it will eventually become a red giant, which could also make sense for the rise in temperature.

In about five billion years that will be a real issue. We will probably have to take action on this in two or three billion years. Of course I understand your point that global warming may well be part of a larger cycle. I also understand that there may be methods of controlling climate by lowering the temperature. None of this changes the need for prudence, rather than continue in practices that will hasten natural climate change. Even the possibility demands prudent action now from climate skeptics, understanding that most see the damage as highly probably, to unavoidable. The climate skeptics that do not even think it* possible* we are damaging the environment, are simple blind.

 

[Ender]

This is quite the opposite of how the Church responded to Galileo. In the case of global warming, the Church is open and responding to scientific evidence. It is the dissenters who are not open to change.

The church was actually in a stronger position re Galileo than it is today with its position on global warming. One of the reasons they were justifiably reluctant to adopt his theories is that they could not be proven. They should have maintained that level of skepticism regarding global warming, which is much less demonstrably accurate than Galileo’s theories.

Ender

 

[Ender]

That would be a legitimate point, if any of it was true. I guess in a sense it is a matter of opinion, but consider that under the accord, which is just that, not a treaty, each country participates voluntarily, and each country makes its own decisions on how best to proceed with the environmental goals.

So we can’t consider the accords unfairly expensive to the US…because we didn’t have to abide by them? Your argument is that they wouldn’t have been costly had we only ignored them like we expect the other countries to do?

The president was dishonest when he presented his speech on the withdrawal, exaggerating the cost and commitment.

Your claim is that the president was dishonest by referring to the actual cost of complying with the accord when the honest position would have been to use only the cost if we welched on it. The honest approach was to have been dishonest about how much we intended to do?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I am curious as to what science people find the inability to accept. The existence of atoms since they can’t be seen? The existence of carbon dioxide? The way in which carbon dioxide is formed? Is it basic chemistry? Is it that the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Do some believe that somehow with fewer trees that somehow carbon dioxide is removed quicker from the atmosphere. Is the existence of “ozone” fake news? I don’t understand why there is so much skepticism.

There is skepticism because the models used to predict future global temperatures have done a poor job. They did not predict, and cannot explain, the current hiatus. Despite the incredible efforts expended on precise measurements there isn’t even agreement on whether the temperature has been statistically stable over the last 20 years or not. Even the latest temperature measurements are continually “adjusted.” Beyond that, the degree of dishonesty exhibited by some on the alarmist side has been astonishing in its scope. The science is not nearly as “settled” as claimed, nor are the scientists nearly as uniform in their beliefs as is asserted. The suggestion that the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is well understood is a claim without substance. Very little about our climate is particularly well understood, especially with regard to the interactions between the major contributors.

Several days ago I posted a link to a study that came out in April that purported to find virtually no CO2 contribution to the rise in global temperature once natural factors had been removed. Is the study accurate? I have no way to know, but its authors included some experts in their field, and needs to be at least addressed. The point being, if experts in the analysis of the climate are unconvinced by the science, there is reason to be cautious, and skepticism is not irrational.

I understand Ridgerunner’s argument that we have to weigh the negative impact of climate control actions against any possible benefits. I do not get ignoring a hard science like chemistry.

You misstate what is involved. This is not a question of ignoring science, rather it is one of dismissing the unfounded claims made by the true believers.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Your claim is that the president was dishonest by referring to the actual cost of complying with the accord when the honest position would have been to use only the cost if we welched on it. The honest approach was to have been dishonest about how much we intended to do?

Ender

He said the Green fund would cost us “tens of billions”, when the cost is 3 billion. He said China and India could build coal plants and we can’t, which is also not in the agreement. Coal plants are not part of the agreement. Therefore, this is also a lie, unless he means that the United States just isn’t capable of the same level of complex construction that India and China are.

 

[Ender]

He said the Green fund would cost us “tens of billions”, when the cost is 3 billion. He said China and India could build coal plants and we can’t, which is also not in the agreement. Coal plants are not part of the agreement. Therefore, this is also a lie, unless he means that the United States just isn’t capable of the same level of complex construction that India and China are.

Let’s take coal: it is not “part” of the agreement only if you assume that it has to be explicitly referred to, which appears not to be the case. That doesn’t, however, mean all that much.*Article 4

1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
   *So, who is to say whether the US is at “global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions”? A world wide government body? A federal judge? If it is determined that the US is at that peak, what are the chances of getting another coal plant approved? They would seem very slim. What are the chances of China or India getting such approval? Given that “peaking will take longer for developing country Parties” I should think their chances would be excellent.

So while it is literally true that new coal plants have not been restricted by this accord, it seems equally true that this is the effective impact it would have. Surely no one would be concerned with allowing a federal judge or two to interpret the meaning of passages like this:Article 2
1. (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.
I mean, where is the concern in allowing non-elected judges to decide what we actually agreed to. This assumes of course that we didn’t ever sign the accord, which would have made it legally enforceable regardless of who interpreted it. I certainly wouldn’t doubt the Spirit of the Hague to do right by the US.
Article 4*
5. Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.*
What, me worry? Trump is branded a liar and documents like this are hailed. This is truly a wonderland we inhabit.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Let’s take coal: it is not “part” of the agreement only if you assume that it has to be explicitly referred to, which appears not to be the case. That doesn’t, however, mean all that much

Yes, it means that what Donald Trump said about coal was not true, any more that the statement that we have given tens of billions to the Green Fund.

 

[josh987654321]

By your logic, the Church should have no position on abortion, as she lacks the expertise in the field of anatomy and neurology to be able to say when life begins.

She does lack the expertise in anatomy and neurology to be able to say when life begins, but she has the expertise in the scriptures to say when life begins.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ProdigalSun]

Yes, they do accept the science, as does nearly everyone else in the world who has looked into the issue. Even North Korea has signed onto the Paris Agreement.

You might want to read Pope Francis’s LAUDATO SI, which explains climate change and the moral imperative to mitigate it, in addition to other serious environmental harms that threaten humanity and God’s creation. See: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

The Catholic CC denialists (who are in the minority) used to pooh-pooh JPII and BXVI for their acceptance of anthropogenic CC, saying they aren’t scientists and don’t know what they are talking about. However, Pope Francis does have education in science, so they can’t say that anymore.

Best just to steer clear of those CC denialists, esp Trump and his outright lies about how the agreement would be bad for the US.

So in other words only listen to me and my side not that other side because they are a bunch of crazy deniers and no nothing liars. CLose your mind to any other point of view and don’t try to understand them!

 

[Ender]

Yes, it means that what Donald Trump said about coal was not true, any more that the statement that we have given tens of billions to the Green Fund.

• 1. Further decides** that, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Agreement, developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the **Parties to the Paris ****Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per **year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries;
     *Does anyone have to wonder which country was expected to provide the largest slice of that $100 B/yr?

Ender

 

[abucs]

It’s exactly the same as Galileo, you only think it’s different because you think your on the ‘winning side’, the fact of the matter is that the Church is not there to provide us with the latest in Science, but rather to provide us with their expertise of the Scriptures.

The church, when pushed, stuck with the established science at the time of Galileo in refereeing the dispute over heliocentrism.

I’m sure back in the day the scientific opponents of Galileo said something like - 97% of scientists agree the earth does not go around the Sun.

Statistically they would be a lot closer to the truth than when the 97% figure is used nowadays.

 

[pnewton]

She does lack the expertise in anatomy and neurology to be able to say when life begins, but she has the expertise in the scriptures to say when life begins.

Scripture does not say.

 

[lynnvinc]

He said the Green fund would cost us “tens of billions”, when the cost is 3 billion. He said China and India could build coal plants and we can’t, which is also not in the agreement. Coal plants are not part of the agreement. Therefore, this is also a lie, unless he means that the United States just isn’t capable of the same level of complex construction that India and China are.

RE the Green Fund (which was established in 2010, before the Paris Agreement), here is an explanation of it, along with the nations who have pledged to contribute, their GHG emissions per capita, and their GDP per capita. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund

And you are correct, the US has agreed to give 3000 million (3 billion) by 2020. I don’t know if Trump will also pull out of that. I don’t think we have given anything yet or very much.

However, I for one think it is a wonderful idea that most of the richer nations of the world (and some relatively poorer nations) have agreed to help the poorer nations of the world develop in ways that reduce their GHG emissions intensity – a cleaner path than the old industrial nations took, for the benefit of the poor and us all.

Isn’t this what Christianity is supposed to be about, helping the poor while helping to reduce harms to the people of the world on into the future.

It makes me sad that people who present themselves as Christian would be against this general concept. The article does discuss issues and problems, but even so they are working to iron them out so the funds are given appropriately, and not to corrupt dictators.