If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

[lynnvinc]

Actually, you’ve had plenty of posts before this, to provide evidence in support of your claims.

Hope you’ve read all the resources I mentioned (top sci journal and IPCC, WGI) – that’s plenty of proof. Other than that, if you need more basic info at a more basic level, you could start with, say, Wikipedia’s entries on CC, or get a basic book on it, or there’s a good online course by a really good climate scientist, specializing on GHGs - David Archer’s course for non-science majors:

• forecast.uchicago.edu/
• forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Hope that helps people understand the science.

You claim I’m a sinner for saying the AGW hypothesis is unsupported - Yet, I’ve on more than one occasion, presented you with references of bodies of REAL people who have died in the NAME of AGW and it’s schemes. It seems very selective to me, that you call on the horrors of hell for perceived sins …yet dismiss actual killings in the name of AGW.

It is a sin to intentionally kill people whatever way. Not sure how mitigating ACC kills people – like my carrying a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms putting people in the paper business (or electric power business) out of work and they starve to death? I’ll pray that they are able to find other jobs and survive, but I think I’ll continue to carry those hankies.

 

[John21652]

Noted

Climate Change is real and has been ‘real’ for millions of years.

There is ample evidence that there have been very dramatic chifts in climate over relatively short time periods and these events have been occuring for millions of years.

Read, for example, how pwrhaps Climate Change Spurred Human Evolution and how entire species dissapeared because of shifts in climate.

Based on past evidence, it is foolish to suggest climate change wont, or can’t happen. For the purposes of this thread, human induced climate change has to be accepted or rejected. If it is not accepted, which means climate change is merely a natural event, then no ‘sin’ can be imputed to the actions of mankind. If human induced climate change is accepted, then it remains to be decided whether mankind’s actions are sinful, particularly in view of the fact that climate change is a naturally occuring event anyway. For human induced climate change to be accepted as sinful, then harm must be imputed to the human actions which caused the climate change to occur, yet there is past evidence that climate change has actually benefited mankind.

However, there is no finality in this debate about whether climate change is even occuring and there is no finality to this debate about whether mankind’s actions are even contributing to a climate change that may, or may not, be happening. So, with these complications in mind, how can one restrict the debate to the sinfullness, or otherwise, of climate change. It’s all purely hypothetical.

 

[rdscheirer]

Why is one of the lead guys for global warming the same NASA guy who in the late 1970’s said we were headed for a new Ice Age? Why is it that people don’t realize that our planet precesses around the sun and that the elliptical orbit expands and contracts over time- we are now in the orbital phase which puts us closest to the sun in our north hemisphere winter- so its warmer.

I’m a Physicist by training-surgeon by the Grace of God- and I tried to get the data from the AGW people but they wouldn’t give it so that it could be reviewed- from what I’ve seen of the limited release of the 10 Siberian temperature stations their AGW goes up in smoke.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Inego de Loyola;9033628:

If we are arguing whether Global warming is real or not I made a thread just for that

, this thread is about the morality of denying it if it is true.
General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic. Please return to the original topic under discussion or move the discussion to the thread referenced above. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Repost for those who missed it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

G. K. Chesterton remarked that the worship of nature is a mark of the barbarian. I believe he was not only right, but prophetic.

Caesar already has his boot upon our necks in every other regard; Catholics nor Amish nor Jews nor Quakers are no longer allowed the freedom guaranteed by the Establishment Clause. Do we really want to add to his powers?

 

[lynnvinc]

Why is one of the lead guys for global warming the same NASA guy who in the late 1970’s said we were headed for a new Ice Age?

Covered that in an earlier post – you’re completely wrong, and it is wrong to lie or continue the lies of others. But I’ll assume you didn’t know, so no sin on your part, but here goes again:
Only a very small handful of scientists were speculating that an Ice Age would be starting – it seemed there had been a cooling trend in decade leading up to the 70s, but later data showed that climate had not been cooling. There was also several other issues being discussed – such as nuclear winter and the cooling affect of aerosols (often emitted when GHGs are emitted). The vast majority of climate scientists in the 70s were predicting warming, not cooling. However, it seems the media went hog-wild with the cooling story.

Since then science as advanced, along with better data and computer power. I seriously doubt any of the scientists predicting cooling in the 70s are predicting it now.

See: skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The innuendo that Dr. James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist you seem to refer to, made any cooling trend or ice age predictions is totally false. It was a scientist named Rasool, using Hansen’s computer model and (name removed by moderator)utting an unrealistic 8-fold increase in aerosols, who predicted it; not Hansen. See skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=11

When you want to impugn the reputation of a person, it’s important to get the facts straight…and also not judge his/her 40 year old claims by today’s scientific evidence/data and standards in science.

I’ll also try not to make false claims about denialists. I think in this thread I’ve come to understand and respect their sincerity in not accepting anthropogenic climate change; they are not all or even mostly evil shills of the fossil fuel industry, but truly sincere and concerned that mitigating climate change (or passing laws that strive to encourage people to mitigate) will in some way be harmful. ((I just think those laws would be ineffective in reducing ACC…assuming they ever get passed or come up for legislative consideration. The only thing that will work is if enough people & businesses actually start reducing their GHG emissions.))

Why is it that people don’t realize that our planet precesses around the sun and that the elliptical orbit expands and contracts over time- we are now in the orbital phase which puts us closest to the sun in our north hemisphere winter- so its warmer.

I’m a Physicist by training-surgeon by the Grace of God- and I tried to get the data from the AGW people but they wouldn’t give it so that it could be reviewed- from what I’ve seen of the limited release of the 10 Siberian temperature stations their AGW goes up in smoke.

It’s the (non-climate science) physicists that should know about GHG-driven anthropogenic climate change if they were to actuall look into it and study it a bit, but are the ones who are most skeptical. I think it would be interesting to delve into why that is so, perhaps using a sociopsychological approach.

The climate changes due to many factors, so good for you to point these out. I think the climate scientists actually know about the orbit, wobble, solar irradiation fluxes, etc. And also GHGs. This has been well established for many decades, and first discovered well over a hundred years ago.

If I recall the 10 Siberian temp stations OWN their data, and the CRU which purchased right to use it, is NOT at liberty to pass the data on to others. You too could buy their data, I suppose, and they might give it to you if they trust you enough not to spread it to others. I think that was the issue, but I’m not sure.

There is no question about whether ACC is happening in my mind (I had a very excellent science education in HS and college, and read a lot of science on my own). I am only concerned now about to what extent it is a sin to be contributing to people’s harm and death through our GHG emissions. Also about whether denialists who refuse to accept what the climate scientists are saying (no matter how robust the evidence becomes) – are they culpable of venial or mortal sin…or are they as sinless as those who haven’t really heard about ACC, or the people who confuse it with the ozone hole, and think they’ve done their part by stopping their use of hair spray (which no longer has CFCs in it anyway, but many don’t know that).

 

[lynnvinc]

G. K. Chesterton remarked that the worship of nature is a mark of the barbarian. I believe he was not only right, but prophetic.

Why is it (what is the actual motive) that so many anti-environmental people mistake my desire to save HUMAN lives (reduce my harm and killing of people) through my Little Way of Environmental Healing mitigation measures as tantmount to worshiping nature. I secondarily feel it is my duty to reduce my harm to God’s creation, which He pronounced good. What’s so wrong about that? Does it make St. Francis, nearly all the saints who have been inspired by God’s creation, and God Himself nature worshipers?

That’s pretty weird.

Furthermore, I have an excellent science background, and I just don’t believe animistic forces (like the man in the moon or the river or mountain spirits) offer good causal explanations.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[exoflare]

Does it make St. Francis, nearly all the saints who have been inspired by God’s creation, and God Himself nature worshipers?

Nope, just the AGW cultists.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why is it (what is the actual motive) that so many anti-environmental people

Just who are these so called “anti-environmental people”…that you speak of?

mistake my desire to save HUMAN lives (reduce my harm and killing of people) through my Little Way of Environmental Healing mitigation measures as tantmount to worshiping nature.

Yet, you call others “sinners” who don’t believe the claims of CAGW that you support?

I secondarily feel it is my duty to reduce my harm to God’s creation, which He pronounced good. What’s so wrong about that?

When a “cause” becomes a compulsion and that compulsion drives you / your judgment of others - you fail your “duty” - ‘cause’ - neighbor.

Does it make St. Francis, nearly all the saints who have been inspired by God’s creation, and God Himself nature worshipers?

That’s pretty weird.

What is weird is that you try to portray yourself in the same class. IMO??

Furthermore, I have an excellent science background,

Yet, you make this FATAL fallacy in logic? Your Normal Scientific Protocol… your scientific being - should be screaming at using an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. So much for your “excellence” in science.

and I just don’t believe animistic forces (like the man in the moon or the river or mountain spirits) offer good causal explanations.

Interesting peek into your mindset IMO!

Hundreds of thousands of years of PROVEN correlation of Natural Climatic Cycles is belief in mountain spirits? Thrown away for a PAST 17 years of “casual” correlation and now into a 17 year cycle of NO correlation between CO2 and temperature rise…equals belief in “river Spirits”?

Leaves one to wonder who is believing in the “CO2 is evil Spirit”

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

And methinks you use too much unsupportable claims to promote the CAGW claims.

 

[kimmielittle]

Covered that in an earlier post – you’re completely wrong, and it is wrong to lie or continue the lies of others.

Why then do you do it?

Just one example of your unsupported claims.

You continue to make excuses for the IPCC Himalaya Claim…When I’ve given you proof…FROM the actual Lead Author…That it was committed deliberately BY the LEAD AUTHOR

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

Yet, you continue to justify it as a “mistake”??

But I’ll assume you didn’t know, so no sin on your part,

INDEED! You place yourself as a Guarantor of Absolution for another…YET you do what?

 

[lynnvinc]

Nope, just the AGW cultists.

Explain. Who and what are the AGW cultists? What are their religious practices that differ so greatly from Christianity and are so repugnant to you.

My own (limited) experiences are with mainly Christians and people of other mainstream faith (plus a few atheists) who are concerned about AGW and into mitigating it, and trying to inspire others to do likewise.

I have also known a few neopagans and curanderos in my life, but I don’t think they are into AGW much, or at least the topic was not raised.

I do hope you are not planning to burn these people at the stake. Think of all the GHGs!

 

[lynnvinc]

You continue to make excuses for the IPCC Himalaya Claim…When I’ve given you proof…FROM the actual Lead Author…That it was committed deliberately BY the LEAD AUTHOR

I was not aware of that story, but I’m thinking that perhaps he was so upset that no one was doing anything about mitigating ACC, that he exaggerated the impact. I sometimes myself speak in hyperbole. It’s a lie, but I think his intention was good – to try and get people to act soon.

Since most people only care about themselves in this day and age – and not at all about future generations – there really isn’t much motive to address ACC. They figure viable conditions will continue up until the demise, and that’s all that matters them.

The harder work we be to get people to care about others – the poor and those in the future. Seem the author took an easy way out, that turned out to be ineffective and even with opposite effects of making people all the more determined to cause ACC and kill off the future.

 

[kimmielittle]

Explain. Who and what are the AGW cultists?

Those that ignore / limit Natural Climatic Cycles
Those that THINK they can explain Correlation through ASSUMED Causation for just how Climate works.
Those that ASSUME they have a higher moral / ethical ground because they believe in the unproven hypothesis of CAGW…When NO observational empirical evidence exists in support of the CAGW hypothesis…

What are their religious practices that differ so greatly from Christianity and are so repugnant to you.

See above

I do hope you are not planning to burn these people at the stake. Think of all the GHGs!

Actually…It is the CO2 is evil spiritualists…that seem to wish such on anyone who questions their post-normal science. You know…blowing kids up…putting skeptics in concentration camps etc…These ALL came from CAGW’ers…

Yes I believe CAGW unsupported claims are UN Christain and the Compulsive Disorders that drive many of these CAGW’ers is a clear and present danger.

 

[kimmielittle]

I was not aware of that story,

Acctually this is at least the second time in CAF threads you’ve made this claim “I was not aware”…this second time leaves me wondering how many times you will try to use this excuse?

but I’m thinking that perhaps he was so upset that no one was doing anything about mitigating ACC, that he exaggerated the impact. I sometimes myself speak in hyperbole. It’s a lie, but I think his intention was good – to try and get people to act soon.

I thought you had an “excellent” scientific background?

This was in IPCC AR4 WG1 The Science Part ]

There can be NO hyperbole in Normal Science - NONE
That he chose to admit it within the Science part of IPCC AR4 - Is ABSOLUTE evidence / proof …that IPCC is practicing Post-Normal Science.

Since most people only care about themselves in this day and age – and not at all about future generations – there really isn’t much motive to address ACC. They figure viable conditions will continue up until the demise, and that’s all that matters them.

Nonsense…This is your subjective generalizations.

The harder work we be to get people to care about others – the poor and those in the future. Seem the author took an easy way out, that turned out to be ineffective and even with opposite effects of making people all the more determined to cause ACC and kill off the future.

Nonsense!!

You may have some Conservation / environmentally sound ideas…BUT these do not AUTOMATICALLY carry–over to the unproven “Solutions” offered in addressing CAGW Claims…

Not one “Solution” has undergone ethical / moral scrutiny…Let alone been proven to Change Climate.

 

[KSU]

"There is no question about whether ACC is happening in my mind "—lynnvinc

Yes, my friend, we believe it is happening there–and only there. That does not give you the right to call us sinners. As a Catholic you know better, yet you won’t stop. Which of us therefore is committing sin?

 

[lynnvinc]

You continue to make excuses for the IPCC Himalaya Claim…When I’ve given you proof…FROM the actual Lead Author…That it was committed deliberately BY the LEAD AUTHOR
Quote:
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

Yet, you continue to justify it as a “mistake”??

I didn’t read the quote above when I wrote a couple of hours ago.

I’ve covered this story many times, and there is no new story here. Dr. Lal did not knowingly tell a lie. He made a mistake based on some other people’s honest mistake (WWF, who got it from a NEW SCIENTIST editor, who got it from an Indian glaciologist over the phone, but got it wrong).

To slander Dr. Lal is surely wrong. (He probably feels very bad the way the denialists are digging their fangs into him, and very bad they are using his mistake to chuck out all of climate science just because of him. He may even have children and is concerned about his descendents suffering from future glacier melt, which will most certainly happen over the centuries now that people have decide to persist in their contributions to AGW due to his mistake.)

You and the Daily Mail can slant the story any way you want, but it is surely wrong to contribute to Himalayan glacier melt, even if it does take some 100s of years more for them all to melt (assuming we keep contributing to AGW). I think there are over 800 million people in the Himalayan watershed who could be affected eventually, a portion of whom are currently being harmed by glacier melt.

The focus here is not on “How afraid are you that AGW impacts with harm you within your lifetime?” but rather, is it a sin to cause harm and death to people though our contributions to AGW. It doesn’t specify when those harms and deaths might occur. There is no statute of limitation on sin.

I think what we need to do is develop a sense of brotherhood with all people around the world and into the distant future. Maybe that would help us reduce our harms to them. As long as we socially construct spatially and temporally distant people as non-beings, non-humans or “other people” who don’t deserve our love and concern, we feel we can sacrifice them for our own profligate pleasures.

2035, 2350 – it doesn’t make any difference to me. I need to reduce my harms to people in both (and all) time frames.

 

[lynnvinc]

"There is no question about whether ACC is happening in my mind "—lynnvinc

Yes, my friend, we believe it is happening there–and only there. That does not give you the right to call us sinners. As a Catholic you know better, yet you won’t stop. Which of us therefore is committing sin?

I’m not trying to be a nasty name-caller. I’m just trying to warn people.

Also, I am exceedingly heart-sick over the harms and deaths we are causing well into the future. I am a bleeding heart person. I just we people could have a tiny ounce of compassion and try to do the right thing. I hope and pray.

Denying AGW is not going to make it go away. It is based on sound science and the laws of physics. Dismissing 1000s of scientific studies and dismissing 1000s scientists as being “on the take” or “evil nature worshippers,” or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is will not make the problem go away. I’m pretty sure all of you here do know that ACC is happening. It’s hard for me to believe you really don’t know that.

 

[exoflare]

Explain. Who and what are the AGW cultists? What are their religious practices that differ so greatly from Christianity and are so repugnant to you.

youtube.com/watch?v=roFB7bGCAgc

 

[Ender]

I’m not trying to be a nasty name-caller… I just we people could have a tiny ounce of compassion and try to do the right thing.

It is irrational to make these statements together. If you assume that people oppose your AGW positions because they have no compassion then you are being uncharitable and I fail to see how this is anything other than simple name calling. It is reasonable to believe that your opponents are wrong but you have no idea why they oppose you and it is inappropriate for you to assume their motives are evil.

If climate change is real it would only be a sin to do nothing only if (a) one believes it is real and (b) one believes we can do something about it. If it is real and I believe otherwise then I am simply mistaken and there is no sin in that. The sin is not committed by those who disagree with you, but you should look more closely at the obligations of simple charity and the prohibition against rash judgment.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I’m not trying to be a nasty name-caller. I’m just trying to warn people.

Also, I am exceedingly heart-sick over the harms and deaths we are causing well into the future. I am a bleeding heart person. I just we people could have a tiny ounce of compassion and try to do the right thing. I hope and pray.

If those on both sides of this issue would stay on topic and quit trying to argue the reality of global warning, as the moderator said, then your statement would not be needed. Rather, charity would demand that we not accuse someone of lacking compassion or not “doing the right thing” based one whether one subscribes to this theory of that theory. This is not the thread to “warn people” but to examine the moral culpability for one who believes in the reality that his actions have an effect on the environment that is detrimental to the lives of other people. Environmental crusading here can only be precidented on an assumed belief in global warming (or cooling), knowing the harm, and choosing to behave selfishly. One is not morally culpable for acting contrary to a theory one does not believe.