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

[PJM]

=lynnvinc;8948182]Assuming anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is real and happening and harming and killing people (and others of God’s creatures), and we are all responsible for the greenhouse gases we emit (and responsible for reducing them in whatever feasible ways we can), how much of a sin would it be to deny ACC is happening, and refuse to do sensible things to reduce one’s greenhouse gases in practical and feasible ways?

A related question is how much of a sin is it not only to deny ACC & refuse to reduce one’s GHGs in any way, but also campaign vigorously to convince others that ACC is not happening, thereby convincing them not to reduce their GHGs?

I know both these would be wrong (assuming ACC is happening), but are they venial or serious sins? At what point does killing people become a serious sin? 10,000,000 people responsible for killing one person; 1000 people responsible for killing one person, 100 people responsible for killing one person, 10 people responsble for killing one person; or one killing one? Also, the intentionality – a person not really knowing about his/her contributions to others’ deaths (which, it seems, would not be a sin at all); a person not putting forth effort to understand how he/she might be contributing to others’ deaths (even though the information is easily available); a person refusing to accept what scientists, popes, and others (who claim ACC is real) say & not caring if he/she is contributing to others’ deaths; a person actually knowing ACC is real, but yet campaigning to convince others it is not real?

Is there some point at which it is a more serious sin or less serious sin.

NOTE: This is not for a discussion about whether or not ACC is real, only about whether IF it is real, how much of a sin would it be to deny ACC, refuse to reduce one’s contributions to it, and strive to convince others it is not real.

It is AT BEST an unproven scientific theory; as such belief ins optional. NO SIN at all.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[kama3]

It is AT BEST an unproven scientific theory;

There is a paper from 1896 (yup, 19th century) by Svante Arrhenius that predicts temperature increase due to CO2. He even gets the climate sensitivity right and correctly predicts that most warming will be in the polar regions. So apparently that liberal global warming conspiracy extends back to 19th century Sweden.

Svante Arrhenius
“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”
Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)

Google will find you a copy, go in peace and be healed of your ignorance.

(On the other hand, carbon offsets… Now that is a scam of the century.)

 

[kama3]

It all depends on whether someone can reasonably be expected to believe it is occurring and is a threat to people.

Well, that reasoning does not always hold.

The following argument is made against abortion: even if it is unclear for you whether abortion kills a human or not, the mere possibility that it may be killing a human warrants making it illegal.

The same logic can be applied to AGW: even if it is unclear for you whether global warming is anthropogenic, the mere possibility of this warrants reducing CO2 output.

 

[kama3]

A related question is how much of a sin is it not only to deny ACC & refuse to reduce one’s GHGs in any way, but also campaign vigorously to convince others that ACC is not happening, thereby convincing them not to reduce their GHGs?

The major problem with this is that reducing one’s personal GHG output is insignificant on the global scale.

Another problem with this is that some “solutions” sold under the guise of AGW prevention (like CFLs or carbon offsets) are measurably worse than the problem itself.

Re: culpability, it probably only extends to people who willingly produce anti-AGW propaganda while knowing that AGW is real. There are however very few of these (although they have a lot of impact). The vast majority of AGW deniers are simply misinformed. Skilled propaganda can literally convince people that black is white

 

[PJM]

=kama3;8956561]There is a paper from 1896 (yup, 19th century) by Svante Arrhenius that predicts temperature increase due to CO2. He even gets the climate sensitivity right and correctly predicts that most warming will be in the polar regions. So apparently that liberal global warming conspiracy extends back to 19th century Sweden.

Svante Arrhenius
“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”
Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)

Google will find you a copy, go in peace and be healed of your ignorance.

(On the other hand, carbon offsets… Now that is a scam of the century.)

The theory is not new; neither is their evidence of it taking place.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Nate13]

Well, that reasoning does not always hold.

The following argument is made against abortion: even if it is unclear for you whether abortion kills a human or not, the mere possibility that it may be killing a human warrants making it illegal.

The same logic can be applied to AGW: even if it is unclear for you whether global warming is anthropogenic, the mere possibility of this warrants reducing CO2 output.

Whether someone is culpable for an action (what we were talking about) and whether an action should be illegal are two separate questions.

If you read the quote from the Catechism instead of playing word games you would understand what I’m talking about. Ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility at which time culpability for the action is not reduced.

Sometimes though:

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

This has nothing to do with whether something should be illegal or not. Why don’t you read the Catechism before you try to use Catholicism against itself, no?

 

[Nate13]

The major problem with this is that reducing one’s personal GHG output is insignificant on the global scale.

Another problem with this is that some “solutions” sold under the guise of AGW prevention (like CFLs or carbon offsets) are measurably worse than the problem itself.

Re: culpability, it probably only extends to people who willingly produce anti-AGW propaganda while knowing that AGW is real. There are however very few of these (although they have a lot of impact). The vast majority of AGW deniers are simply misinformed. Skilled propaganda can literally convince people that black is white

I’d add that those who willingly produce AGW propaganda knowing that it is false and baseless are culpable. Lying on either side would always be a sin.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"89

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

In my opinion, certain members and officials of the Church keep harping on things that are unimportant, while leaving the big issues unfought—hence the mess we are in now re the First Amendment.

 

[littlebum2002]

I personally do all I can to help the environment. I drive a green car, recycle, compost, etc. That is how I thank God for what He has done for me.

Other Catholics ask me why I do not pray the rosary, or attend daily mass. I ask them why they don’t recycle. There are many ways to thank God. Attending mass and praying rosaries is nice, bu helping the environment is taking the matter into your own hands. I am sure that, if Jesus were alive today, “Blessed is he who protects the earth” would be a beatitude.

 

[littlebum2002]

Sorry, I also want to post about climate change itself.

We have known for 150 years that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. If has been scientifically proven. There is no doubt.

We know burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. This can be pro9ven in any scientific lab. There is no doubt.

No doubt humans release carbon dioxide. No doubt carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. Yet people still claim there is doubt that humans are warming the atmosphere. They claim this is politically motivated, despite the fact that the Greenhouse Effect was scientifically proven in 1859. What political motivation did John Tyndall have in 1859 to fake the results of the Greenhouse Effect? I would love to know.

People claim that, since the temperature of our earth has always fluctuated, it is impossible for humans to cause the temperature to change. I would counter this by saying forest fires have always occurred, yet humans can still create MORE forest fires. Yes, levels of CO2 in our atmosphere naturally go up and down, and this naturally changes the earth’s temperature. But that does not mean man cannot artificially raise the temperature by releasing artificially large amounts of CO2.

People deny climate change based on interpreting ice caps, or other nonsense. Forget all that. Go back to the basic science. If you deny that man is heating the earth, which of these is false?

1. The Greenhouse effect, which was proven in 1859, that CO2 and other gases trap heat on earth?

or

1. That burning oil releases carbon dioxide?

One of these must be false. Because if burning oil releases CO2, and CO2 heats the earth, then burning Co2 heats the earth. And if you think the greenhouse effect is flawed, I ask you to look at the numerous scientific proofs of it from over 100 years ago and ask what they did wrong. You would win a Nobel prize if you proved the Greenhouse effect is wrong.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

People deny climate change based on interpreting ice caps, or other nonsense. Forget all that. Go back to the basic science. If you deny that man is heating the earth, which of these is false?

1. The Greenhouse effect, which was proven in 1859, that CO2 and other gases trap heat on earth?

Please for the sake of argument provide an exact working definition of the Greenhouse Effect. and maybe then explain it as well you can in layman’s terms to make sure everyone here knows what we’re talking about. One of the reasons I ask is because I believe I may have conclusively disproved it but I may be relying on a faulty definition.

 

[Nate13]

Please for the sake of argument provide an exact working definition of the Greenhouse Effect. and maybe then explain it as well you can in layman’s terms to make sure everyone here knows what we’re talking about. One of the reasons I ask is because I believe I may have conclusively disproved it but I may be relying on a faulty definition.

I think the other poster should read the OP’s post again:

NOTE: This is not for a discussion about whether or not ACC is real, only about whether IF it is real, how much of a sin would it be to deny ACC, refuse to reduce one’s contributions to it, and strive to convince others it is not real.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I think the other poster should read the OP’s post again:

New thread here.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sorry, I also want to post about climate change itself.

We have known for 150 years that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. If has been scientifically proven. There is no doubt.

We know burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. This can be pro9ven in any scientific lab. There is no doubt.

No doubt humans release carbon dioxide. No doubt carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. Yet people still claim there is doubt that humans are warming the atmosphere. They claim this is politically motivated, despite the fact that the Greenhouse Effect was scientifically proven in 1859. What political motivation did John Tyndall have in 1859 to fake the results of the Greenhouse Effect? I would love to know.

People claim that, since the temperature of our earth has always fluctuated, it is impossible for humans to cause the temperature to change. I would counter this by saying forest fires have always occurred, yet humans can still create MORE forest fires. Yes, levels of CO2 in our atmosphere naturally go up and down, and this naturally changes the earth’s temperature. But that does not mean man cannot artificially raise the temperature by releasing artificially large amounts of CO2.

People deny climate change based on interpreting ice caps, or other nonsense. Forget all that. Go back to the basic science. If you deny that man is heating the earth, which of these is false?

1. The Greenhouse effect, which was proven in 1859, that CO2 and other gases trap heat on earth?

or

1. That burning oil releases carbon dioxide?

One of these must be false. Because if burning oil releases CO2, and CO2 heats the earth, then burning Co2 heats the earth. And if you think the greenhouse effect is flawed, I ask you to look at the numerous scientific proofs of it from over 100 years ago and ask what they did wrong. You would win a Nobel prize if you proved the Greenhouse effect is wrong.

So there must be a lot of evil SUVs on Mars, because that, too, is warming.

They don’t award the Nobel Prize on merit. No one is stopping you from recycling; they ARE stopping the rest of us from the freedom not to recycle, not to use dangerous fluorescent light bulbs, and ultimately, to enjoy religious freedom.

 

[sedonaman]

Assuming anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is real and happening and harming and killing people (and others of God’s creatures), and we are all responsible for the greenhouse gases we emit (and responsible for reducing them in whatever feasible ways we can), how much of a sin would it be to deny ACC is happening, and refuse to do sensible things to reduce one’s greenhouse gases in practical and feasible ways?

A related question is how much of a sin is it not only to deny ACC & refuse to reduce one’s GHGs in any way, but also campaign vigorously to convince others that ACC is not happening, thereby convincing them not to reduce their GHGs?

I know both these would be wrong (assuming ACC is happening), but are they venial or serious sins? At what point does killing people become a serious sin? 10,000,000 people responsible for killing one person; 1000 people responsible for killing one person, 100 people responsible for killing one person, 10 people responsble for killing one person; or one killing one? Also, the intentionality – a person not really knowing about his/her contributions to others’ deaths (which, it seems, would not be a sin at all); a person not putting forth effort to understand how he/she might be contributing to others’ deaths (even though the information is easily available); a person refusing to accept what scientists, popes, and others (who claim ACC is real) say & not caring if he/she is contributing to others’ deaths; a person actually knowing ACC is real, but yet campaigning to convince others it is not real?

Is there some point at which it is a more serious sin or less serious sin.

NOTE: This is not for a discussion about whether or not ACC is real, only about whether IF it is real, how much of a sin would it be to deny ACC, refuse to reduce one’s contributions to it, and strive to convince others it is not real.

IF angels exist, and IF they can enter the material world, and IF they could dance, how many could dance on the head of a pin?

 

[agnes_therese]

IF angels exist, and IF they can enter the material world, and IF they could dance, how many could dance on the head of a pin?

If you don’t like threads involving hypothetical questions, there’s no forum rule that you must respond.

 

[Inkwell]

The theory of Global Warmig- sorry, Climate Change- states that the damage to the world would be incomprehensible- millions, if not billions of humans would die, near every single person would suffer in some way or another, and the damage to global ecosystems would be twice as bad. So yes, if, hypothetically, Climate Change is real, it would be a sin to ignore it and pretend nothing is happening. But I think it’s all just fear-mongering to give politicians a moral standpoint and to gain anti-climate change corporations more money. That said, it never hurts to be on the safe side, and I know recycling is a useful thing, so I make an effort to recycle recyclables and to turn off lights and electronics when not in use. I lose nothing for it, after all.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

IF the Church declares that Greenism is the new Word and ignoring it is a sin, THEN that is the day I leave.

This would constitute worship of the created, rather than the Creator. IF that’s the case, why not just be a pagan?

 

[jilly4ski]

The theory of Global Warmig- sorry, Climate Change- states that the damage to the world would be incomprehensible- millions, if not billions of humans would die, near every single person would suffer in some way or another, and the damage to global ecosystems would be twice as bad. So yes, if, hypothetically, Climate Change is real, it would be a sin to ignore it and pretend nothing is happening. But I think it’s all just fear-mongering to give politicians a moral standpoint and to gain anti-climate change corporations more money. That said, it never hurts to be on the safe side, and I know recycling is a useful thing, so I make an effort to recycle recyclables and to turn off lights and electronics when not in use. I lose nothing for it, after all.

Of course this is assuming that the “fixes” for AGW, are not also killing people right now. Such as “alternative” fuels which have driven up the cost of food causing people in third world countries to starve (and even people in our own country experience hunger). Or population control which has led to not only voluntary contraception and abortion, but government enforced abortion and contraception.

 

[sedonaman]

About as much of a sin as it is to deny a fabricated crisis.