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

[lynnvinc]

Another question: ** How much of a sin is it to slander and attack climate scientists and send them and their families death threats?**
I’m thinking this IS a sin, no doubt at all (but not sure if it is venial or serious, warranting going to the much hotter place than a globally warmed world, if one does not repent & confess.

I just saw this: motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-video

I’ve been reading about these attacks on climate scientists for many years now (at one point Mann felt depressed and suicidal because of them…but it seems he has adjusted to the vicious onslaught and become stronger for it). These attacks are very poignant and sickening. Even here on CAF one often reads Catholic ACC skeptics/denialists viciously declaring climate scientists are evil or bought by some evil or at least self interests into telling lies about their science, faking it, etc. And skeptics/denialists really light into environmentalists even more, with vicious epithets and accusations of being neopagan-pantheist-atheist-communist-economy-destroyers out to take over the world and enslave everyone (like why would we want to take over a world in which the economy had been destroyed??? ).

(I myself am guilty of sometimes accusing denialists of being evil baby killers or …whatever. I guess I’d also better go to confession.)

 

[KSU]

“I myself am guilty of sometimes accusing denialists of being evil baby killers or …whatever.”–lynnvinc

Hello, Lynn. I have kept an eye on this thread and was wondering if you would get around to that; apology accepted.

I see you are still fighting for your well-intentioned cause, and I still challenge you to back up your claim that popes have taught us that ACC is real.

Pope BXVI’s references to the interplay between environmental protection (or fighting “climate change” in current governmental/UN parlance) and fighting global poverty may be what you are hanging your hat on. I interpret his meaning as asking governments to not short change the poor in order to fight “climate change”, and you may interpret it as a teaching that ACC is real.

Is that the case? I can’t imagine what else you may be thinking of when you make your claim.

 

[15thClub]

"Assuming anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is real …
The operative word here is assuming and given the the fact that the science and the corresponding research has been politicized, I find it hard to even accept the original question as legitimate.

 

[lynnvinc]

We only have a supposed 100 years of oil left.

You’re probably right. We have already passed peak & the proof is in the fact that we’re going after oil in very deep waters and struggling to squeeze it out of tar sands (with high energy (name removed by moderator)ut).

In fact, some top climate scientists aren’t worried much about oil; but they are really worried about coal and uncoventional oil from tar sands and oil shale. I think we have 100s of years of coal left – quite enough to push us well past the tipping point to no return into runaway warming…

 

[lynnvinc]

I am not concerned with “global warming” because there is nothing I can do to stop it, if it is indeed caused by humans. I am however concerned with polluting and ruining our local ecology. : I recycle and try to save both water and energy. I don’t see what that has to do with the price of bread.

Good for you. By mitigating local and regional pollution one pretty much also helps mitigate climate change. For instance recycling saves lots of energy that would have been spent on extracting resources, with recycling aluminum being the most energy savings (I think 95%), and also saves the rainforests where they mine the bauxite to make aluminum. Water requires energy to pump and heat it, so reducing water use thru conservation measures (low-flow showeheads and toilets; turning off water while brushing teeth; watering lawn in evenings or early mornings; etc) also reduces GHG emissions.

The problem with carbon credits, is not that people can’t make as much money as oil companies…

I’m against carbon credits and cap&trade myself – not that it would cost me a lot, since we live very frugally well below our means – but bec it just won’t do anything at all to lower GHGs. It’s just a scam to put more money in the hand of the oil/coal companies.

I am in favor of removing all the subsidies and tax-breaks from the fossil fuel companies, bec I really feel bad about paying on April 15th for other people to go around polluting and harming people and God’s creation (which He found “good”).

Beyond that I would be in favor of a “fee and dividend” by which a fee is collected for every barrel of oil and ton of coal, and that money then divvied up and given back to the people – who could then decided whether to use it to pay their higher fuel costs from the fees, or become energy efficient/conservative and really be on the road to prosperity.

BTW I noticed BP cleaned up the Gulf pretty well after their terrible spill, but I don’t see the wind power companies doing anything about all those birds and bats they are killing…

They are developing technology to avoid bird kills (but you’ll never hear about it in the media, which is funded by oil/coal…including MSNBC. Also the bird kill think is grossly exaggerated. If you are concerned about bird kills then you can work to help reduce these non-turbine kills:

Man-made structure/technology Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.) – source: science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

• Feral and domestic cats: Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
• Power lines: 130 million – 174 million [source: AWEA]
• Windows (residential and commercial): 100 million – 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
• Pesticides: 70 million [source: AWEA]
• Automobiles: 60 million – 80 million [source: AWEA]
• Lighted communication towers: 40 million – 50 million [source: AWEA]
• **Wind turbines: 10,000 – 40,000 **[source: ABC]

Also climate change is expected to make over 50% of bird species go extinct within the next couple 100 years. So mitigating CC will help save the birds.

 

[DLG123]

“Only a theory” isn’t a convincing argument. I say the evidence is overwhelming. Unlike with evolution, something is at stake. By continuing to consume fossil fuels excessively, a society can devastate the lives of other people. Refusing to do something (what’s more, to at least what could be easily done with almost no cost to us whatsoever) to avoid harming others or ourselves down the road is I think wrong. It’s not what one thinks, per se, but what one does about it. A tobacco company CEO may make millions marketing cigarettes to children, and while he may tell himself and wish he believed that that the science behind the effect of smoking on one’s health is “only a theory,” there comes a point where it ceases to be simply ignorance, and becomes willful denial, which is not excusable.

We can destroy the world; God made us stewards of it, recall; he did not make it steward of us. Everyone knows that nuclear weapons (made by us) could destroy the world many times over. It is not arrogance at all.

And us breathing CO2 is quite irrelevant. Our bodies need potassium, but inject enough of it into a person and they go into cardiac arrest and die. There is such a thing as too much of something.

And We don’t need to produce more CO2 than volcanoes to cause the temperature of the earth to increase. All we need is to is add a few % more to what is naturally produced and over the course of a few decades and the temperature rises enough to have substanital consequences. Ever learn the equation Pe^(rt)? Where a slight change in P (principle; this is the equation for continuous interest) will cause a significant change in the output of the function?

Where is the “evidence” that is so overwhelming? Everything I have read has either been debunked or is a complete fraud. There is a greater chance of a global pandemic killing a massive amount of people than global warming or is it global climate change?

I read a funny story about Al Gore… while he was screaming about the rise of the oceans he purched an ocean front property in Florida… Funny how the elites love to tell us what to do and where to live but thats for the “unwashed masses” not the learned of the world. “Global warming” is only another way to control the people.

Even if mankind unleashed EVERY nuke we had the earth would not be destoryed. Life yes the earth it self no.

 

[DLG123]

Wow, where to begin. First of all, Greenland was never green. It was named Greenland to mislead competing exploereers I believe. It was never green though.

Secondly, proximity of the earth to the sun is not remotely the sole cause of temperature; in fact, the content of the atmosphere is far more significant for our purposes. It was precisely the fact that the earth retained more heat than early physicists projected it would given its distance to the sun that led Joseph Fourier to discover the Greenhouse effect about 200 years ago. And if you’d read any of the data, you’d know that the mean temperature is in fact higher than it was in 100 AD.

Thirdly, your drivel about Marxists, Democrats, Solyndra, etc. is all quite irrelevant to the truth. And a brief look at the Fortune 500 list should tell you that oil companies have a financial incentive to promote their way of viewing things that makes every alternative energy company in the world’s revenue combined look like pocket change.

You are confusing Greenland with Iceland!

You know what… you are right the Earth being closer to the GIANT ball of fire in the sky has NO bearing on the temperature here. Thats very logical. Maybe Mercury or Jupiter is the same temperature as us as well?

 

[manualman]

Um, yes you can. If everyone drove their cars less…

R, In post #93 of yours there is a format error in which your first quote is attributed to me. Unless I have amnesia, I’m pretty sure those aren’t my words. Can you check that for me and tell me where I said that??

The second quote of me looks right.

 

[lynnvinc]

I read a funny story about Al Gore… while he was screaming about the rise of the oceans he purched an ocean front property in Florida… Funny how the elites love to tell us what to do and where to live but thats for the “unwashed masses” not the learned of the world. “Global warming” is only another way to control the people.

I’m pretty sure anyone who bashes Gore (you are not doing so here, just pointing out what seems to be an inconsistency) is risking their immortal souls. I’m referring to other posters who grossly, sinfully, and viciously slander Gore to an extreme level here on CAF and elsewhere, not to you or your post.

As politicians go, Gore seems to be a very honest and decent person, a good person, concerned about life on planet earth – which is a lot more than people can say about many other politicians. I have always held a high opinion of him, but have realized that he lacks the charisma/personality to attract voters and win an election (well he did win the popular vote, but may have won more votes, except for his personality–which I personally find more appealing than the George W Bush or Clinton sparkling types). If he has some sins (aside from changing from an anti-abortion to pro-choice position…which he may have done to win Democratic support), then I don’t now about them; his activism on climate change is very laudable. But even if one suspected him to be lying about climate change (and he most certainly is not), it is a sin nevertheless to vilely slander a person with total lack of evidence, or a bunch of out and out lies, and half-baked ridiculous conspiracy theories. It sickens me that denialists are so full of hatred and venom and ad hominem attacks for people like Gore and climate scientists James Hansen (an very good person), Michael Mann, and others.

As for Gore’s buying beachfront property, I haven’t heard about that, but it is not inconsistent from what he is saying – that sea levels are expected to rise several feet (high end projection) by 2100, and more beyond that. Maybe he figures he won’t live more than 20 or 30 more years, so his property should be okay at least through the end of his life. Maybe he wants to study sealevel rise up close. There is nothing inherently sinful or even illogical for a person who accepts climate science to buy beach front property.

 

[lynnvinc]

Why is it the first “global warming” alarmist happened to be the same NASA “scientist” that led the call in the late 1970’s about the coming Ice Age.

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.))

 

[DennisTate]

I do consider that the God of Abraham, the Creator of heaven and earth is ultimately a scientist/inventor composed of fundamental energy who has existed from infinite time. All that we behold around us are the results of His/Her experiments conducted over eternity. Frankly, time itself is one of His/Her/Their inventions!

If indeed it is correct that the Creator is a Scientist, then fudging the results of information is more of a transgression than we might tend to imagine.

Why do people lie?

Because they are scared of something more than they are scared of the Creator…on the other hand there are instances where people lie in order to protect life such as in the case of people hiding Jewish refugees during the holocaust…but that is another matter altogether?!

Anyway, if indeed it is true that rising ocean levels pose a threat to millions and millions of lives over the coming five decades then it is imperative that Christians be on the side of ultimate truth on this subject.

Is this article regarding the possible results of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet true?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater

On the other hand I tend to suspect that a carbon tax or cap and trade system will simply not work rapidly enough and we should instead be looking at ways to combat climate change more directly, such as by investing in turning deserts green!

inhabitat.com/norway-and-jordan-sign-agreement-to-make-sahara-forest-project-oasis-a-reality/

Norway and Jordan Sign Agreement to Make Sahara Forest Project Oasis a Reality

 

[DennisTate]

I personally think that a biologist in New Mexico did a great job of looking at this subject from another angle than the usual:

“So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere… .”

“Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes…”

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined… "

“The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave….”

“So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive….”

“Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…”

“We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell).”

 

[lynnvinc]

Did you know that Al Gore buys (or bought) carbon credits from his own carbon credit company?

RE the “carbon credit” thing to offset one’s personal GHG emissions, most environmentalists I’m aware of it make a big joke out of it. They say we need to reduce our own GHG emissions, not pay someone else to reduce their emissions then pay for those reductions.

They say it’s like a man paying someone else to be faithful to his wife, so the man can then cheat on his own wife with impugnity.

However, I have suggested in those discussions that we could give “carbon reduction” gifts to people. That is, go ahead and pay some poor person in Africa to use solar power instead of burning wood, and send a certificate re that as a Christmas gift to a loved one. No one actually gets by with not reducing their own GHGs, but we do help others who cannot afford upfront costs to reduce their to do so.

((BTW, the Vatican tried to buy carbon credits, after it had done lots to reduce its GHGs through solar panels, etc, but bought the carbon credits so it could claim to be "carbon neutral. Unfortunately the E. European company it dealt with was a total scam, and their money did not end up buying forests or whatever it was.))

 

[lynnvinc]

I personally think that a biologist in New Mexico did a great job of looking at this subject from another angle than the usual:

Good idea. It, along with every other idea (except geoengineering that has dangerous side effects) needs to be tried at least. We still need to reduce our own GHG emissions, but drawing down that CO2 will also greatly help.

There is also biochar (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar ) and peridotite (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridotite ) that might also help draw down CO2. I’ve heard some cautionary things about biochar and that it needs further study from a friend at BiofuelWatch.org, and don’t know much about peridotite. But it’s good people are working on these things, and I hope something does work, without nasty side-effects.

 

[lynnvinc]

I do consider that the God of Abraham, the Creator of heaven and earth is ultimately a scientist/inventor composed of fundamental energy who has existed from infinite time. All that we behold around us are the results of His/Her experiments conducted over eternity. Frankly, time itself is one of His/Her/Their inventions!

If indeed it is correct that the Creator is a Scientist, then fudging the results of information is more of a transgression than we might tend to imagine.

Why do people lie?

Because they are scared of something more than they are scared of the Creator…on the other hand there are instances where people lie in order to protect life such as in the case of people hiding Jewish refugees during the holocaust…but that is another matter altogether?!

Anyway, if indeed it is true that rising ocean levels pose a threat to millions and millions of lives over the coming five decades then it is imperative that Christians be on the side of ultimate truth on this subject.

Is this article regarding the possible results of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet true?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater

On the other hand I tend to suspect that a carbon tax or cap and trade system will simply not work rapidly enough and we should instead be looking at ways to combat climate change more directly, such as by investing in turning deserts green!

inhabitat.com/norway-and-jordan-sign-agreement-to-make-sahara-forest-project-oasis-a-reality/

Norway and Jordan Sign Agreement to Make Sahara Forest Project Oasis a Reality

Great post. RE the sealevel rise, that is an important problem from CC, but there are also many other serious problems – like increased droughts, floods (even during droughts), wildfires, disease vector spread, heat stress to plants, animals and humans, etc. Sealevel rise will take a long time to do a tremendous amount of damage, except to Small Island States that are already evacuating. I’m thinking the biggest problem within this century and lasting over 100,000s years (assuming life is around then) is that CC may be causing severe loss of food production, both on land and in the seas, leading to the undernurishment and starvation of millions of people, mostly those who are already poor and undernurished.

I think the West and the rich around the world have basically written off those poor people and islanders, and are just having a big gluttonous party – stoking the GHG emitting fires higher and higher. A one last big (sinful) fling of profligacy before it all ends. No thought about the grandchildren or their grandchildren, just “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall kill everyone, including our own progeny.”

 

[stevegravy]

Nature fakers arising, nothing worse than someone on a mission to save you from from yourself. If you want to live in the stone age go ahead leave me out. I prefer rational people.

hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/108971

 

[Ender]

I’m thinking the biggest problem within this century and lasting over 100,000s years (assuming life is around then) is that CC may be causing severe loss of food production, both on land and in the seas, leading to the undernurishment and starvation of millions of people, mostly those who are already poor and undernurished.

I’m thinking this is the mindset that led people in the 19th century to fear that telegraph wires affected the weather and that trains caused nervous disorders, and that in 100 years all that people will remember of this will be found in textbooks on the subject of mass hysteria.

Am I right? Perhaps not. Am I immoral in believing I am right? Certainly not.

Ender

 

[KSU]

“Nature fakers arising, nothing worse than someone on a mission to save you from from yourself. If you want to live in the stone age go ahead leave me out. I prefer rational people.”

Great post, stevegravy. The problem is that you will never be left out because the phoney eco-movement needs our tax money and our votes for the “right” politicians who will do the taxing. Never mind that those same green politicians tax us for direct and indirect abortion, actual infanticide (“partial birth” abortion) contraception, and self-beneficial green energy research in return for campaign money. Of course, those politicians have to override your constitutional religious liberty in the process, but they no longer fear the Catholic vote.

It’s the worst kept secret in Washington–tax the American people and give the money to the Culture of Death and green groups who, after taking their cut, return the money in the form of campaign donations to the politicians who will then appropriate grants to the same social, green and scientific research groups every year. Think, as just two examples, Planned Parenthood and Solyndra.

The green culture of death types, supported and glamorized by the Hollywood culture of filth types, rake in the money and want us to believe that it’s really a good thing-- less children to despoil the environment is the moral and patriotic duty of all right-thinking people. After all, they say, mankind has come of age; we have outgrown the old superstitions and no longer fear any and all sexuality, especially modern women.

Here is a snippet from the BALTIMORE SUN, a news outlet which mirrors today’s elite culture:
"February 12, 2012 The argument by Catholic bishops and other conservatives that providing contraception and reproductive health services for all women is a denial of Catholics’ religious freedom is without merit (“O’Brien’s quixotic fight,” Feb. 9). The law is not forcing anyone to use contraception. It is saying it should be available without cost for those who want it, even those employed by religious-run institutions like universities and hospitals.
“Let’s relegate to the past the many women who suffered debilitation or death because of too frequent pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. No priest or bishop has ever been pregnant or lost sleep worrying how the birth will turn out. Which of them has striven to provide for the physical, mental and moral health of their birth children, as well as money to help with their education.” articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-12/news/bs-ed-contraception-letter-20120211_1_catholic-bishops-contraception-wives-and-daughters

This from the SUN on February 22, 2012: "Regarding the debate over gay marriage, gay people need equal rights in terms of whom they love and to have that love sanctioned by marriage. Gay marriage would bring financial gains to our state by allowing gay people to marry in Maryland instead of going to other states.
“The bill backed by Gov. Martin O’Malley has legal protections in place for religious beliefs and for religious organizations and churches. African-Americans should support gay marriage and remember that the Bible was used to condone slavery and other forms of discrimination.” articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-22/news/bs-ed-gay-marriage-20120222_1_gay-marriage-place-for-religious-beliefs-gay-people

Finally, an article in the SUN today (By Karen Hosler 1:32 p.m. EST, February 23, 2012) smiles on Gov. Martin O’Malley’s plan to impose another gasoline tax; a 6 percent sales tax on the purchase of gasoline because in addition to many other splendid things, it could "…possibly help clean the Chesapeake Bay at the same time — a formula that could work not just in Maryland but in all of the bay states.
“Here’s how it works: Up to one-third of the nitrogen that pollutes the bay and its rivers comes from the air, and much of that comes from motor vehicle emissions. Thus, to the extent that Marylanders find the higher gas tax so burdensome that they drive less or trade up to more fuel-efficient vehicles, the bay gets a little breathing space.” baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-gas-tax-pro-20120223,0,5032459.story

So, according to our foremost experts, to find true happiness, the people in the state named after the Mother of God should not only free themselves from the Catholic Church’s voodoo sexuality, but agree to an additional 6% gasoline tax to save the environment.

I wonder: If the people don’t agree to all that, how serious would be their sin? After all, we are told, mere hundreds of thousands are killed each year by abortion, but we all might be killed by global warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

the phoney eco-movement needs our tax money and our votes

What we need is your goodness and humanity, your good deeds small (and great, if possible) of reducing your GHGs and other polllutants. This can be done without taxes, without politicians, and without lowering your living standard or the nation’s productivity one iota – even increasing these.

We could also use your prayers and good will.

Can you all who disbelieve ACC is real, just to humor us, at the very least turn off lights not in use, or perhaps turn off your ICE car’s engine in drive-thrus, or perhaps carry a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, or perhaps one or two of a myriad of other small enviro deeds? Maybe meatless Fridays during lent, maybe throughout the year; or if that’s your big night out, then how about meatless Tuesdays (also a day of the sorrowful mysteries, on which Catholics at least in India go meatless, some of them even fasting on Tues & Fri – tho I don’t follow this, I’m such a weakling). The Little Way of Environmental Healing, fashioned after St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, all done out of a love of God, as a pale reflection of God’s great love for us and His great material and spiritual generosity toward us. As Mother Teresa said, it doesn’t matter how little our good deed is, as long as it is done out of love for God and neighbor, our love makes it infinite.

There are other measures that might require some upfront investment – llike $6 for a lowflow showerhead (which has saved us over $2000 in the 20 yrs we’ve had it), or $2600 for a SunFrost frig (ours, bought in 1991, paid for itself within 16 years & is going on to save us $100s – I’m factoring in the added benefit of much less veggie spoilage). I wouldn’t expect anyone to do the latter, they’d have to be very much dedicated and have the financial resources to do that, but perhaps some might want to try the former.

Why would we expect people to freeze in the dark, or boil during summer, or forgo vacation trips, when we ourselves indulge in these various comforts and pleasures.

I applaud anyone who has the courage do the right thing to help reduce our harm to people and God’s creation, not only from CC impacts, but also from other enviro harms – even if people laugh at and scorn you and call you names.

We would ask for prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. That’s all, nothing more.

 

[DennisTate]

Great comments!

I think that you will enjoy this article on how plants tend to make up for so much of the damage that we do.

spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,660902,00.html
CO2 and Carbon Sinks
How Nature Helps Cancel Out Humanity’s Sins

By Christoph Seidler