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

[DLG123]

As I suspected, the author of that linked article, Ronald Rychlak (see acton.org/pub/commentary/2005/04/06/tort-reform-moral-issue ) is loosely connected with (has written an article for) the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a strong purveyor of climate change denialism and anti-environmentalism, which is heavily funded by Koch Industries and Exxon. See pp.12-13 of greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/publications/gwe/Koch-Report-2-FINAL.pdf and exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=5

As they used to say during Watergate, “Follow the money.” (BTW, Nixon was perhaps our best environmental president ever, or a close runner up with Teddy Roosevelt.)

I know there are lots of other motivations for denying anthropogenic climate change, such as “Let me alone to follow my own ways; I don’t want to change my behavior” and “I’m not harming anyone,” etc. One I’ve heard recently from one willing to accept ACC is real, “Well, we all have to die sometime,” to which I responded, “Yes, but we don’t have to kill.”

But the money thing is pretty evil – and I think would amount to sin. Not that Rychlak has made money off of climate change denialism, but just being associated with Acton earns one a suspicious mark in my books.

The Gospels call us to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. We must not be naive about human nature and our reluctance to do the right thing (I speak from personal experience here) mixed with monied interests – like devils on the shoulder whispering things that make us lazy, selfish, prideful people feel justified in denying ACC and refusing to do anything to mitigate it. So that then we can add “totalitarian takeover,” “economic collapse” and “neopagan/pantheism takeover” to our long list of reasons why we should not accept climate science and mitigate climate change.

After re-reading your post I noticed your source was “green peace”. Really the same green peace that is associated with ELF the terrorist organization? Green Peace is nothing but a propaganda arm of George Soros and the DemocaRAT party.

“like devils on the shoulder whispering things that make us lazy, selfish, prideful people feel justified in denying ACC and refusing to do anything to mitigate it.” WOW what a statement lazy, selfish and prideful? Lazy like the “carbon offset program” for the wealthy so they don’t have to change anything in their everyday life just us measly peasents. Selfish like Al Gore who flies around on his private jet? Or his 13000 sq ft mansion in Memphis that uses more electrical power in a month than the average American household does in a year? Or the fearmongering that the oceans will rise 20 ft and buying a beach front property located 10 feet from the water? Prideful… Like all liberals who think they know more than us trogladites? Us unwashed masses that need to be “re-educated”.

The group of people that you look to (the Nancy Pelosi types) want you to believe that conservatives such as myself want to dump nuclear waste into the streams, lakes and rivers. Polute the air by pumping massive amounts of carbon and acid and mercury into the air and drinking water. Because we hate the Earth more than we love our children because we want to leave them a septic planet. Do you not see the SIN staring you in the face? The lies and deceit that they are perpetrating in monumental.

Please wake up and open your eyes… You are being used by elites who only want to gain massive power and to make a cheap buck off the backs of the… what was the phase coined by Stalin or was it Lenin “useful idiots” either way a communist is a communist is a socialist.

DLG

 

[lynnvinc]

You keep mentioning Teddy Roosevelt… You are aware that he is the reason that the brown and black bear (which were native to Texas) population were decimated by over hunting and relocation. Don’t get me wrong I am by no means anti-hunting but “Teddy” did to the Texas bear what was done to the free roaming buffalo of the midwest. He is not this saint that you are making him out to be… he is the first progressive and an admirer of the fabian socialists from Europe. He is not a good man or good preisdent.

You may be right. There are things I don’t know about him. But as presidents go (which isn’t very far to help the environment), TR and Nixon were better than the other…which doesn’t mean they were good, I guess. I was raised a Republican, so I may be biased.

Koch brothers? Really?
You want to see a dangerous group look into George Soros’ connection to the Carbon Credit scheme. Media Matters, Tides Foundation, Center for American Prosperity, Open Society…

discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Not sure in what ways Soros is funding climate denialism or encouraging people not to mitigate climate change. Don’t know much about him, but I’m sure there are many many more where the Koch brothers and Exxon came from.

BTW, I’m against Cap&Trade (carbon scheme, as you call it), bec it is an ineffective way of reducing our GHGs. However, I am all for giving money to poor people, esp in poor nations, to help them develop along a cleaner path – with energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy measures. Not as charity – which is denigrating to people – but as compensation for the harms we are causing them thru climate change. We break it, we buy it.

What I’m for is 1st do not harm – end or reduce the subsidies and tax-breaks to the fossil fuel industries. 2nd, once that is accomplished, we can think about a “Fee & Dividend” scheme by which every ton of coal and barrel of oil is charged a fee as it comes from the ground or enters a port; then all that money collected is divided up equally and given to the people (sort of like the way tax refunds were given). They can then use that extra money to offset their higher energy/products costs,…or they can invest it in measures to become energy/resource efficient/conservative or go on alt energy, and really be on the road to properity.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s see, if adjusting your thermostat to a lower setting will kill your family and all your pets, then yes that would be a sin, just like if all the OP’s speculation were true, then it would be sinful.

 

[lynnvinc]

After re-reading your post I noticed your source was “green peace”. Really the same green peace that is associated with ELF the terrorist organization? Green Peace is nothing but a propaganda arm of George Soros and the DemocaRAT party.

You may or may not be right, but that does not make them wrong on Koch and Exxon funding (which they got from open tax records).

“like devils on the shoulder whispering things that make us lazy, selfish, prideful people feel justified in denying ACC and refusing to do anything to mitigate it.” WOW what a statement lazy, selfish and prideful?

Don’t forget our fallen nature. People tend to skip over that part of the Bible.

Lazy like the “carbon offset program” for the wealthy so they don’t have to change anything in their everyday life just us measly peasents. Selfish like Al Gore who flies around on his private jet? Or his 13000 sq ft mansion in Memphis that uses more electrical power in a month than the average American household does in a year?

Right there. But I suppose at least they are trying to do something. (Do I detect a bit a envy for the rich?)

Or the fearmongering that the oceans will rise 20 ft and buying a beach front property located 10 feet from the water? Prideful… Like all liberals who think they know more than us trogladites? Us unwashed masses that need to be “re-educated”.

I just wish people had paid more attention in school. I was very blessed to have a good education and parents that were keen I have one.

It is not all that hard to understand the greenhouse effect (which I learned on my own, bec I was really into science during high school in the early 60s – I think I learned it from a book, “Knowledge & Wonder” by Weisskopf or ?)

Once one understands the greenhouse effect, then it is not to hard to learn about global warming.

God gave us brains, and we are expected to use them. It’s just too bad there are so many people turning kids off from education, including peer pressure.

BTW, I’ve not heard of any scientist making the claim that the seas will rise 20 feet within this century (more like 3 feet, top end projection)…which would not happen for many centuries, if we persist in our “business as usual” path. At any rate it is not a good thing to do to our future generations.

 

[kama3]

A lot of people seem to really want anthropogenic ‘climate change’ to be real. I think it falls into the realm of pagan worship of the created rather than the Creator.

Your theology has been proven false on November 1, 1952 at Enewetak Atoll.

God obviously did not prevent Man from acquiring a planet-destroying capability. So logically, there is little reason why would God render Man unable to modify climate – a relatively benign capability in comparison…

 

[DLG123]

What I’m for is 1st do not harm – end or reduce the subsidies and tax-breaks to the fossil fuel industries. 2nd, once that is accomplished, we can think about a “Fee & Dividend” scheme by which every ton of coal and barrel of oil is charged a fee as it comes from the ground or enters a port; then all that money collected is divided up equally and given to the people (sort of like the way tax refunds were given). They can then use that extra money to offset their higher energy/products costs,…or they can invest it in measures to become energy/resource efficient/conservative or go on alt energy, and really be on the road to properity.

FACT… the government makes more money per gallon of gas or barrel of oil than the oli companies do. The profit margin for that “evil” exxon is around 8%. In companrison the government takes and average of 30% for doing NOTHING at all. These tax breaks you speak of is for the drilling of dry wells and other expenditures not for pulling the oil out of the ground. My family is in oil and gas production as well as ranching so I guess I start off with 2 strikes against me.

Now to this Fee and Dividend scheme at every level of production oil and gas are taxed… Then all the money collected is confiscated and divided up and given to the people? The companies that do ALL the work of finding, exploring, drilling, cleaning up the messes that sometimes happen are not owned by “the people”. who do you think the government is? This is NOT Venezuela yet. It CANNOT (well it is NOT supposed to be able to) confiscate companies. You need to read Atlas Shrugged in the worst way. If you confiscate money and industries then you will have the John Galt effect. I also think you need to take or re-take ECON 101. There is NO feasible alternative energy source that is ready to take on the fossil fuels. Maybe one day but the technology is NOT there yet. Just be patient and let the market work itself out.

DLG

Also George Soros is funding the propaganda that is the hoax of man made global warming.

 

[DLG123]

You may or may not be right, but that does not make them wrong on Koch and Exxon funding (which they got from open tax records).

Don’t forget our fallen nature. People tend to skip over that part of the Bible.

Right there. But I suppose at least they are trying to do something. (Do I detect a bit a envy for the rich?)

I just wish people had paid more attention in school. I was very blessed to have a good education and parents that were keen I have one.

It is not all that hard to understand the greenhouse effect (which I learned on my own, bec I was really into science during high school in the early 60s – I think I learned it from a book, “Knowledge & Wonder” by Weisskopf or ?)

Once one understands the greenhouse effect, then it is not to hard to learn about global warming.

God gave us brains, and we are expected to use them. It’s just too bad there are so many people turning kids off from education, including peer pressure.

BTW, I’ve not heard of any scientist making the claim that the seas will rise 20 feet within this century (more like 3 feet, top end projection)…which would not happen for many centuries, if we persist in our “business as usual” path. At any rate it is not a good thing to do to our future generations.

I will have to say that you are a judgemental little person.

“You just wish everyone could have a good education like you” and then you site a book and high school eduaction from the 60’s! WOW that is the funniest thing I have read in awhile. I imagine that science has not changed at all since the 60’s. Oh wait in the 70’s it was the ice age coming.

No I am note envious of Al Gore wealth. I personally am not wealthy but come from a family of means. I just don’t like people scamming others out of their money be it bernie madoff directly or Al Gore through the backdoor by stealing from the taxpayers (which his companies have recieved over $250 million of tax payer dollars). This is the essence of CRONEY Capitalism.

DLG

 

[kama3]

[Gov’t] CANNOT (well it is NOT supposed to be able to) confiscate companies.

And there is no reason to do that.

All it would take would be a simple law, prohibiting construction of new power generation blocks fired with fossil fuels. The market would then choose the most viable carbon-free option, depending on local circumstances. Fossil-fired plants would be naturally decomissioned at the end of their design lifetime (50 years) and replaced with carbon-free alternatives.

Of course, that scheme won’t fly, because it doesn’t fill the pockets of financial speculators. Cap&Trade, however, does.

There is NO feasible alternative energy source that is ready to take on the fossil fuels.

Incorrect. At least for electricity production, nuclear is perfectly capable of replacing fossil fuels. See France.

Transportation is another issue, but given recent progress in electric cars, it looks like we will be able to run the transportation networks on electricity. Since electricity generation can be nuclear, that eliminates two major sources of CO2. I believe that there’s one sector where fossil fuels are impossible to replace, and that’s aviation.

Now, the problem is that environmentalists run away screaming when they hear the dreaded N-word.

 

[pnewton]

Your theology has been proven false on November 1, 1952 at Enewetak Atoll.

God obviously did not prevent Man from acquiring a planet-destroying capability. So logically, there is little reason why would God render Man unable to modify climate – a relatively benign capability in comparison…

I do not understand, or perhaps I do not agree with your use of the words, “prove”, “false” and “theology.” The link you gave proves nothing. It is a wiki link about the first hydrogen bomb test, which did not, by the way, destroy the Earth, hence our presence here.

Care to explain your line of reasoning further?

 

[lynnvinc]

FACT… the government makes more money per gallon of gas or barrel of oil than the oli companies do…

When I heard about tax subsidies to coal and oil, I actually contacted my Republican Rep’s office, and they confirmed that for me. I suppose if you really want to find out whether they are getting subsidies, you could look into it…from legit sources (not Fox News, and such).

Also George Soros is funding the propaganda that is the hoax of man made global warming.

Then he must be a very very good man. That really helps restore my faith in humankind to some extent. But given our fallen nature, I expect ACC denialism to continue to the bitter end. I hope for the best (and also that it does turn out the scientists were wrong), but I expect the worst – that climate scientists are not wrong, and that people will continue to destroy life on earth.

What we need is prayer. God’s grace is enough, they say, but God please help us.

 

[lynnvinc]

A lot of people seem to really want anthropogenic ‘climate change’ to …I wonder why the former (ACC] is a popular rallying cause, and the latter [abortion, etc] is not.

I guess I’m so emeshed in the Catholic Church that this seems reversed – there are plenty of Catholics out there campaigning against abortion (and I at times join their efforts); but there are so few who know about ACC, and most of those who do deny it.

Maybe I just live a very sheltered life, but that’s my world, and to balance it out (fill in missing works), I have chosen to focus more on ACC.

Thw truth is there are many many good causes to work for and evils to fight against. However, in our personal lives and behavior we need to make sure we are reducing/ending our own harm on ALL levels. We should not be seeking abortions AND we should be reducing our environmental harm (some of which causes abortions). As Jesus commanded, we should be perfect as the Father is perfect.

 

[DLG123]

Then he must be a very very good man. That really helps restore my faith in humankind to some extent. But given our fallen nature, I expect ACC denialism to continue to the bitter end. I hope for the best (and also that it does turn out the scientists were wrong), but I expect the worst – that climate scientists are not wrong, and that people will continue to destroy life on earth.

What we need is prayer. God’s grace is enough, they say, but God please help us.

Lynn… WOW you are farther gone than I thought… Do some research into the “very good man”. He has personally collapsed 6 currencies and profited in the billions while the working people suffered a loss of all their savings and pentions. He has been deemed a economic terrorist by 3 of these countries. He and his organizations (over 50 that I have counted) are the cheif funders and financiers of the Democrat party. In his own words he believes he is a “type of god”. During the holocaust he sold out his Jewish brothers and sisters to save his own skin and to make a buck. IMOP he is a very very evil man. If you don’t believe me do your own research.

Please please I beg of you to open of heart and mind and realize the deception that is being perpetrated on you. I am NOT asking you or suggesting to you to or supporting the pollution of the Earth. Neither am I supporting the pollution or destruction of the Earth. I am a hunter and avid outdoorsman . The beauty of the Earth and is a testament to God’s love for us. I do recycle, I try not to drive more than necessary but I WILL NOT give up my truck because some pseudo scientist says that I am destroying the Earth by driving! The Electric car can take you 40 miles of of 1 charge that take between 6 and 8 hours. My son has a rare disease that requires me to drive to Dallas once every month or two. Should he just be left to his own “fate” so I can “save the world” by not emmiting green house gas?
I thought there was only 1 Savior of the world but hey now according to environmentalist we can all be saviors of the world.

DLG

Fun trivia question: How far does the average meal travel before it is on one’s plate? The answer will shock you!

 

[kama3]

I do not understand, or perhaps I do not agree with your use of the words, “prove”, “false” and “theology.” The link you gave proves nothing. It is a wiki link about the first hydrogen bomb test, which did not, by the way, destroy the Earth, hence our presence here.

Care to explain your line of reasoning further?

Sure.

The poster I was replying to invoked the argument which has been put forth by the Cornwall Aliance – an Evangelical alliance of AGW sceptics. The relevant part reads:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

In a nutshell, that means Earth’s ecosystem is designed by God in such a way, that Man is unable to disrupt it. Claiming that Man can disrupt the ecosystem (i.e. cause global warming) denies the glory of God.

That theology, however is dead on arrival. Reason: hydrogen bomb.

The thing about hydrogen (fusion) bomb is that there is no inherent limit on its explosive power. (Fission bombs have such practical limits). Even more: we know that such limit cannot exist, because the physics involved is the same which drives the stars – and stars produce much more energy than hydrogen bombs. Stars can also produce energy well above planet-destroying levels.

What follows, is that Man is able to build an Earth-destroying hydrogen bomb: there is no physical limit which would preclude it, nor can such limit exist. Arguably, the existing world nuclear arsenal combined is an Earth-destroying weapon, at least from a practical standpoint. Meaning, while it is not able to blow the planet apart, it has enough power to irreversibly destroy the ecosystem.

So we can determine from physical knowledge, that God did not put any fail-safes which would preclude us from obliterating the whole Earth ecosystem using hydrogen bombs. And since there is no H-bomb fail-safe, there is little reason to believe that there is a global warming fail-safe.

In other words, if God made Earth resilient to human alterations, then hydrogen bombs would not work, as hydrogen bomb(s) allow Man to destroy the Earth. Since hydrogen bombs obviously work, then Man can destroy Earth. And if Man can destroy Earth, then man can reshape Earth. So, since Man can destroy Earth, then Man can warm (or cool, or whatever) the Earth.

So global warming is our problem, and God will not help us with it.

 

[DLG123]

Incorrect. At least for electricity production, nuclear is perfectly capable of replacing fossil fuels. See France.

Transportation is another issue, but given recent progress in electric cars, it looks like we will be able to run the transportation networks on electricity. Since electricity generation can be nuclear, that eliminates two major sources of CO2. I believe that there’s one sector where fossil fuels are impossible to replace, and that’s aviation.

Now, the problem is that environmentalists run away screaming when they hear the dreaded N-word.

I agree with this point on nuclear power as far as electricity. I was talking about transportation.

I however, disagree with you about the electric car. The volt basically has to be given away. They still are not reliable enough and cannot travel long distances without switching to fossil fuels. But I will concede that they are on the right track. IMOP I think the natual gas route would be more feasible

 

[kama3]

I agree with this point on nuclear power as far as electricity. I was talking about transportation.

I however, disagree with you about the electric car. The volt basically has to be given away. They still are not reliable enough and cannot travel long distances without switching to fossil fuels. But I will concede that they are on the right track. IMOP I think the natual gas route would be more feasible

My main point is that CO2 redutions should be made where they make sense. Nuclear electricity generation makes perfect sense (the grid does not care where the energy comes from). That alone would be huge progress. On the opposite side you have airplanes: there’s really nothing which can replace jet engines.

Re: electric car, it quite quickly went from a complete nonsense to being viable (if expensive) for city commuting, so I’d just give it a few more years.

Then we have another CO2-free transportation technology, namely electric trains.

 

[KSU]

Per DLG123 : “My family is in oil and gas production as well as ranching so I start off with 2 strikes against me.”

In my pots #125 and #130, I was telling Lynn (unsuccessfully, I see) to be on guard against allying herself with the eco-fakers and unscrupulous bad actors whose actions I saw up close and personal. I indicated that their actions, lies and propaganda result in authentic environmentalists having “two strikes against” them from the beginning of any debate like this one.

I hope, DLG, that in view of your use of the phrase “2 strikes against me” you didn’t take my words to mean that the oil, gas or coal industries, or people associated with them, necessarily were bad actors. That is not the case, especially not in today’s regulatory climate. Of course, the better known a company is, the more careful it is to be protective of the environment–it simply has no choice.

I fear, DLG, that there is no point in trying to persuade Lynn.

 

[pnewton]

What follows, is that Man is able to build an Earth-destroying hydrogen bomb: there is no physical limit which would preclude it, nor can such limit exist. Arguably, the existing world nuclear arsenal combined is an Earth-destroying weapon, at least from a practical standpoint…

Yes, it is arguable, though I would argue against it. While I believe we can change the climate, I know better than to think we can destoy the Earth. In theory, we can destroy ourselves, however, since I believe in God, I do not believe that we can actually destroy ourselves our have the power. Our free will can never exceed what God allows. Therefore, a single H-bomb test does not prove that God would allow us such leeway.

Thank you for clarifying the point.

 

[kama3]

Yes, it is arguable, though I would argue against it. While I believe we can change the climate, I know better than to think we can destoy the Earth. In theory, we can destroy ourselves, however, since I believe in God, I do not believe that we can actually destroy ourselves our have the power. Our free will can never exceed what God allows. Therefore, a single H-bomb test does not prove that God would allow us such leeway.

So what you are saying is that God’s H-bomb fail-safe is not in how the world works, but in Man’s mind. So the Man keeps his hand on the launch key, but will never turn it, since God limits his freewill.

If we apply such reasoning to global warming, we must conclude that Man’s free will in destroying the environment is limited – hence, the Man should undergo a change of heart before too much damage is done.

 

[pnewton]

So what you are saying is that God’s H-bomb fail-safe is not in how the world works, but in Man’s mind. So the Man keeps his hand on the launch key, but will never turn it, since God limits his freewill.

If we apply such reasoning to global warming, we must conclude that Man’s free will in destroying the environment is limited – hence, the Man should undergo a change of heart before too much damage is done.

I believe this to be true, though it is neither provable or disprovable. However, we do have the promise of Noah. Now while God says that He will never bring about such a calamity, and while this does not mean Man can not, I do believe that such universal extinction runs counter to the plan of God. Remember that there is no launch key. There are many. It takes no great miracle to prevent the proverbial launching of all the nuclear arsenal. Indeed, it is the latter that would take a miracle.

 

[KSU]

It didn’t take long to get here:
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13495