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

[KSU]

lynnvinc says: “We would ask [not for tax money and votes for green anti-life politicians, but just] prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. That’s all, nothing more.”

Really, Lynn? I guess you mean the kind of prudence, justice, temperance and charity you show us non-AGW belivers in your following statements:

“My experience at CAF is that the ACC skeptics… just will not accept it, even if God Himself were to come speak directly to them…since they don’t accept even what the scientists and popes have been saying about it. It’s not a science issue, but an ideological issue, and they are totally convinced that if people seriously decide to mitigate ACC it will end up in a totalitarian regime and economic collapse.”

“I, of course, feel very sorry for the tremendous human suffering and loss of human life…but… I suppose at worst it might mean a longer stint in purgatory for the worst offenders.”

" How about the 10 Commandments, and ‘Thou shalt not kill’ …if AGW is real, then we are indeed killing people".

“There’s no law or sin against harming and killing people this way, but I for one feel compelled to reduce my harm and killing.”

“I’ve been reading about these attacks on climate scientists for many years now…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… telling lies about their science, faking it, etc.”

" the sea level rise…increased droughts, floods…, wildfires, disease vector spread, heat stress to plants, animals and humans, severe loss of food production, both on land and in the seas, leading to the undernourishment and starvation of millions of people, mostly those who are already poor…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."

“I didn’t need 95% scientific certainty, and neither did JPII when he first called on us to mitigate AGW.”

The last of your statements listed above is my favorite; an insinuation that disbelievers like me are disobeying JPII’s new doctrine that man-made global warming is real, and we are obligated to mitigate it. As you stated in one of your posts, we non-believers who have decided to stay in the Church anyway (I love that one) must have been “asleep in the pews” when that new doctrine was being taught. I am overwhelmed by your prudence, justice, temperance and charity towards us.

Nevertheless, Lynn, you needn’t ask for my prayers and good will; you have had them for a long time because I believe your heart, at least, is in the right place–even though you drive a car that exists only because of my bailout tax dollars and which in most cases runs on evil coal-produced electricity (think of all the black-lung disease and polluted air and water and dead fish), and even though, thanks to you, I now have to waste water by flushing twice. But take fair warning–if you ever send someone to take my shower head there will be big trouble.

 

[thomasf]

Much of the AGW crowd is not really about ‘global warming’ or protecting the planet. It’s about handicapping man and stopping humanity from reproducing. IMO it’s more of a sin to impose artificial handicaps on people, to destroy economies and force more people into poverty, and to treat human life as expendable and something to be eliminated in order to protect the earth.

We should treat God’s gifts of the earth and its resources with respect. That doesn’t mean degrading human life and humanity.

 

[lynnvinc]

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

Skimmed over the article re 2 myths – re nature & the Enlightenment concept of man (specifically the Noble Savage idea).

PART ONE: Critique of Mistaken Ideas about Nature/Environment:

I have other problems (from those of Teddy Roosevelt v. Jack London) with the concept of “nature” and environmental as “nature.” People automatically assume this great divide between nature (qua wilderness species and places) v. civilization. This goes for some or perhaps many environmentalists, but more so for nonenvironmentalists, who consider the environment to be useless species in useless places.

This is an artificial divide: The environment (nature) is the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, the chemicals that permeate through our skin, the materials with which we build our buildings and create our products. In terms of our material existence it is fundamental, while the economy (production, division of labor, ownership/tenure, inheritance, modes of exchange, distribution, redistribution, the market) is merely contingent and instrumental; is should supposedly be aiding us get the things we need from the environmental/nature for our survival and happiness. We could live without the economy, but we cannot live without the environment/nature…which God provided us for our survival, happiness, and for building up His kingdom.

Have I not been speaking primarily about CC harming people, and only secondarily about it harming the rest of God’s creation? However, we cannot live without air, water, and food, so these are also crucial to protect for us and others on into the future. “Sustainable development” is defined as development which meets the needs of this generation, without compromising meeting the needs of future generations.

BTW, Teddy Roosevelt was one of the nations greatest environmentalists (don’t know about Jack London); he did a tremendous amount to protect the environment. In those days (unlike today) people thought about and were concerned about future generations, about you and me. Roosevelt’s great grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, is also a good environmentalist and chair of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

 

[lynnvinc]

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

PART 2: Critique of Enlightenment Thinking:

Yes, we are very much influenced by Enlightenment thinking (whether the idea of human nature is noble or brutish), especially here in the U.S., where the very foundation of our society rests on Enlightment ideas. One could call America an Enlightenment experiment. And Rousseau (the Nobel Savage guy) perhaps had the greatest impact on our founding fathers. The idea was that free people (whether noble or Hobbsean brutish) roamed around independent of society, autonomous, self-contained free individuals, with natural rights, and they did not give up their rights when they joined together in a social contract to form society. Therefore our society prizes basic rights, the individual, and his rights. It follows a “rights-based code of ethics,” while more traditional societies followed “duty-based codes of ethics.”

Consider the times (1700s) – with increasing sociopolitical complexity came increasing oppression of individuals. The Enlightenment philosophers rightly railed against the autocratic governments and the Catholic Church (to the extent powerful figures within the Church were supporting this oppression). Democracy was born as a good adjustment to this oppression.

The problem comes, however, when we go too far in the other direction of focusing exclusively on rights and the individual (rather than on duties and society and social groups, such as the family), because given our not-so-noble human nature (remember Adam and the Fall) the tendency will be to focus on our own rights and grossly downplay (not even perceive) the rights of others AND our duties to them. This has had interesting ramifications – the Tea Party ideology, women’s rights, reproductive rights, the rights to “women’s health coverage” (including contraception and abortion) – you get both Republican and Democratic ideology from Enlightenment thinking.

The problem is an individual’s rights are always in a context of other people’s rights, so what happens is the strongest and wealthiest get their rights extolled and protected, while the powerless and poor get trounced on.

While it is good that we do what we can to avoid and fight against oppression, and in that end promote rights, I think is also good that we focus on our duties and caring for others. What I love about the Catholic Church is that unlike the Protestant religions, it very much is into solidarity with the poor, the unborn, future generations. It is very much duty oriented – even tho in America it has been somewhat corrupted by excessive Enlightenment thinking and American ideology…which is why I’ve always called it “the American Catholic Church,” as opposed to the “Roman Catholic Church.” We may think we are in communion with the RCC and with Jesus, but de facto we are not. We have to struggle against the excesses of Enlightenment thinking.

Nature and the environment do not play a role in Enlighenment thinking, beyond passive resources for our use.

Modern science and social science offer a different perspective – we are not self-contained, autonomous beings (we all have at least mothers, for one thing). From an ecological and human ecology perspective we are all emeshed in nature/environment/society – interdependent and highly connected. Society was always there from the beginning of our human history. You impact one part of nature, there could be repercussions to other parts. It is a complex “web of creation” that even the scientists do not fully understand, and that inspires religious persons to great awe of the Creator.

We need to use prudence in dealing with it. If scientists are finding our behavior is causing harms which boomarang back and harm people, we need to do what we can to reduce that behavior, find less harmful alternatives. We should not wait 100 years from now when the very last scientist funded by Exxon and Koch tells us ACC is real and harmful, and then consider actions to take. Out of prudence we must act now.

 

[ACCT]

Climate change is a hoax. It is bad science. The socialists are also using the banner of climate change, and any other “crisis,” to take away our freedom. We look to Jesus for asnswers, not a pagan, socialist government!

 

[jude777]

The problem with “Climate Change”, previously referred to as “Global Warming” hehe, is that the people who believe this is a real issue, don’t understand that throughout history weather patterns naturally change over time. It is all natural and not a big deal. #commonsense

 

[lynnvinc]

lynnvinc says: “We would ask [not for tax money and votes for green anti-life politicians, but just] prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. That’s all, nothing more.”

Really, Lynn? I guess you mean the kind of prudence, justice, temperance and charity you show us non-AGW belivers in your following statements:

“My experience at CAF is that the ACC skeptics… just will not accept it, even if God Himself were to come speak directly to them…since they don’t accept even what the scientists and popes have been saying about it. It’s not a science issue, but an ideological issue, and they are totally convinced that if people seriously decide to mitigate ACC it will end up in a totalitarian regime and economic collapse.”…

You caught me in my sin. Thanks. Yesterday I came up with what I want to do for Lent (aside from giving up sweets, at which I always fail): become more charitable and gentle in my attitudes, speech, and behavior.

Mother, upon my lips today, Christ’s precious Blood was laid:
That Blood which centuries ago, was for my ransom paid.
And half in love, and half in fear I seek for aid from thee,
Lest what I worship, rapt in awe should be profaned by me.

Wilt thou vouchsafe, as Portress dear, to guard my lips today?
Lessen my words of idle worth and govern all I say:
Keep back the sharp and quick retorts that rise so easily;
Soften my speech with gentle art to sweetest charity.

Please check the laugh or careless jest, that others harsh may find;
Teach me the thoughtful words of love that soothe the anxious mind.
Put far from me all proud replies, and each deceitful tone,
So that my words at length may be faint echoes of your own.

Oh, Mother, you are mine today by more than double right:
A soul where Christ reposed must be most precious in your sight.
And you can hardly think of me from your dear Son apart,
Then give me from myself and sin a refuge in your heart.

So please do point it out whenever I say something offensive. I’ll try not to do so, but sometimes I’m unaware, or it gets out before I’ve checked it (esp with my husband…poor fellow).

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

In fairness, their answer would likely be "the next 2,000+ years worth of humanity and the other creatures we share the planet with.

A lot of greenies are goofy, I agree. But it isn’t unreasonable to look at the impact of today’s human environmental impact compared to a couple hundred years ago and wonder just how long it can go on without catatrophic damage. I just think it’s sad that those concerned have largely hung their hats on the CO2 bandwagon when other theats are more easily verifiable and imminent.

It is not in the least bit reasonable, nor will man-made ‘climate change’ ever be proven.

It is not in the least bit Catholic to allow Caesar to dictate what you may do with your garbage or your money.

It is sheer human arrogance to suggest that we can ‘destroy the planet,’ and such claims, if you follow them to their logical end, are always driven by those who promote population control via abortion and other atrocities.

 

[KSU]

Thanks for that beautiful Prayer After Communion in #125, Lynn.

As a retired U.S. official who spent most of a lifetime dealing with some power-hungry and irresponsible elements of our society, both nationally and internationally, guarding now against resulting cynicism and a sharp tongue is a constant battle. So that prayer is especially appropriate.

(My job was to ensure the certainty that cleanup/mitigation of U.S. waters, both ocean and inland, would occur–up to statutory limits–at the expense of the responsible party, whether domestic or foreign, in the event of pollution. My working universe was the U.S. Congress; the White House; DOJ and other federal departments; an agency of the United Nations; and the international shipping, insurance and oil industries.)

Protecting God’s jewel box has always been my labor of love, despite what you may have assumed from my previous posts railing against environmental charlatans who just hurt the cause, and against anti-life forces who see the environmental movement as a natural ally.

 

[lynnvinc]

…even though you drive a car that exists only because of my bailout tax dollars and which in most cases runs on evil coal-produced electricity (think of all the black-lung disease and polluted air and water and dead fish)

I heard that GM paid back that bailout loan in full, & at any rate it is the environmentalists that were really ticked off at GM some 10 or so years ago for killing the EV1. Despite that I think most don’t hold grudges; I’ve heard a good number who were really upset over their EV1s being confiscated and crushed have now purchased the Volt .

RE coal – it is even dirtier than oil, but can be better controlled at the power plant. My understanding from the EV club members is that even if an EV were powered by coal-powered electricity, it would involve only 2/3 the pollution. Since we are on 100% wind, and thinking of getting into solar, it isn’t so bad.

I know that many climate skeptics against wind power are concerned about the birds (and I have allayed their concerns by informing them that wind generators kill far far fewer birds than many of our other human contraptions and activities), but here is a story I just read today about how CC is harming birds: " Climate Change, Increasing Temperatures Alter Bird Migration Patterns" at sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120223142642.htm …and I’ve read elsewhere about other CC problems for birds…such as baby bird hatching and worm/insect peaking timing now being off kilter, so that they baby birds starve.

, and even though, thanks to you, I now have to waste water by flushing twice.

Sorry about the toilet. We had some better results when in 1995 we set about replacing our 5.5 gallon flush one with a 1.6 gal flush one. Being exceedingly miserly, we were not about to select anything new-fangled and expensive, so we just bought the cheapest toilet on the market – American Standard, about $90. We installed it ourselves (it took us the whole day, while a plumber could have done it in an hour), and figure the water savings paid for it within a year or so.

But take fair warning–if you ever send someone to take my shower head there will be big trouble.

If your showerhead is less than 15 years old, then it is probably low-flow. There was a law passed around that time that required water-savings on water-related devices. I came to find out bec I was tracking my congressman’s exceedingly low score on environmental issues – most years 0; well, one year it turned out he had voted for some environmental measure, and it was that water-saving bill. I checked to see how other congressmen had voted on it, and every single one had voted for it – mine would have been the only one not to have voted for it, if he had not voted for it.

OTOH, if your showerhead is not “low-flow,” I bet there are ones almost exactly like it that are. At any rate, I’ve never suggested that people do each & everything they could do re environmental measures, only the ones that suit them. There are so many, that if one thing is off the table, there will be many more that a person might find acceptable to doing…even happy to do, or at least happy that it would save him/her money.

 

[lynnvinc]

Thanks for that beautiful Prayer After Communion in #125, Lynn.

As a retired U.S. official who spent most of a lifetime dealing with some power-hungry and irresponsible elements of our society, both nationally and internationally, guarding now against resulting cynicism and a sharp tongue is a constant battle. So that prayer is especially appropriate.

(My job was to ensure the certainty that cleanup/mitigation of U.S. waters, both ocean and inland, would occur–up to statutory limits–at the expense of the responsible party, whether domestic or foreign, in the event of pollution. My working universe was the U.S. Congress; the White House; DOJ and other federal departments; an agency of the United Nations; and the international shipping, insurance and oil industries.)

Protecting God’s jewel box has always been my labor of love, despite what you may have assumed from my previous posts railing against environmental charlatans who just hurt the cause, and against anti-life forces who see the environmental movement as a natural ally.

Thanks. That’s beautiful.

 

[lynnvinc]

It is sheer human arrogance to suggest that we can ‘destroy the planet,’ and such claims, if you follow them to their logical end, are always driven by those who promote population control via abortion and other atrocities.

I’m thinking that if you want to fight the pro-abortion environmentalists, then become an environmentalist. They will respect and listen to you more when you tell them it doesn’t make logical sense to kill children in order to save the environment for the children, if you are yourself an environmentalist and exhibit some interest in saving the environment for the children.

You don’t have to go whole hog and get off the electric grid with your own solar/wind energy, or buy a Leaf or Volt, or anything really big. Just do a couple of things like take reusable bags when shopping or recycle or turn off your engine in drive-thrus. Just some minor signs that you are with them on saving the environment for the children. Then they will listen to why it is not only wrong to commit abortion, but also illogical.

 

[lynnvinc]

RE the population control and abortion issue, I agree there are many who are into this…even well before ACC became an issue. Of course, we live on a finite planet with just so much arable land and productive potential, so even in best conditions without any environmental problems (such as changing climate and depleting freshwater sources) it might be difficult in the long run (centuries from now) for the population to go on doubling every 25 years and maintain some modicum of adequate nutrition for each and every person on earth.

In the past people had very big families, but the death rate was also very high. My husband’s grandfather in India in the early 1900s had 13 children – 3 lived to reproduce, 2 lived to become Catholic priests, and 8 died in childhood. That’s not good either. We want to have children that survive to reproduce (or become religious) and live long, healthy lives.

Now with many factors threatening our sustainability and livelihood on into the future – not just ACC, but many other serious environmental harms, including resource depletion – some people are running scared their own children or grandchildren might not have a sustainable future. It would be tempting for those people to suggest that other people bear less children or get abortions. That way, they themselves would not have to reduce their environmental impact and could go on with their profligate life, and there will be something left over for their own children.

Easy solutions are always tempting. I myself delight in the “install it & forget it” measures – like the low-flow showerhead, SunFrost frig, caulking and weatherstripping, the Chevy Volt. That’s the easy stuff (tho some require a good financial source).

It’s the behavioral things that are very difficult – like taking reusable bags for shopping; one often forgets, and then there is the embarrassment of trying to explain to the clerk that he/she should pack the things in those bags, while scoffers look on. Or (and this is the really biggy) eating low on the food chain; I myself am a total slacker in this department…salmon tastes so good, esp the way I cook it. As one saint said the tongue is the most dangerous instrument of evil, not only referring to our gluttony, but also to our vile word, lies, and insults.

It would be great if there were some easy things for lent or in our prayer life – “install it & forget it” things. Unfortunately we need to continually struggle – no pain, no gain – and that’s hard.

A true environmentalist will trek on with the hard stuff of changing his/her behavior, picking self up and getting on the path again when back-sliding. He/she may also try and inspire others to follow, but will not continue a profligate lifestyle and expect everyone else to sacrifice. As a recent poster put it, there are lots of nature-fakers among us (or just people who are not environmentalists, but are concerned about environmental problems and want the best for themselves and their children…and would have that even at the expense of sacrificing other people’s children).

What we need is more true environmentalists, not people who would sacrifice children in order to persist in gluttony…sort of like “eating the children.”

OTOH, I think it is still wrong (if not a sin) to deny climate change (and other environmental problems) and do nothing to try and mitigate them – as if God should be expected to provide us manna from the sky when we run out of food.

 

[KSU]

Per KSU: “Lynn, you needn’t ask for my prayers and good will; you have had them for a long time because I believe your heart, at least, is in the right place–even though you drive a car that exists only because of my bailout tax dollars and which in most cases runs on evil coal-produced electricity (think of all the black-lung disease and polluted air and water and dead fish)”

Per Lynn: “I heard that GM paid back that bailout loan in full”

The truth: foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/

gao.gov/products/GAO-11-471

Lynn, I don’t believe you knowingly spun the truth, and it seems you have softened your stance. Maybe we non-Al Gore types are starting to get through to you regarding the mind-boggling amount of deception by unscrupulous, self-serving eco-fakers, and that includes grant-hungry scientists who even you know for a fact have altered/hidden pivotal warming data. You know better than I that even current ways of good old recycling have as many eco cons as pros, and that it exists largely because municipal taxpayers subsidize it and proponents make money.

My point is this: Almost all people highly value the environment. Only moral incompetents don’t try to protect the environment in their own way, and of course there is some moral culpability in purposefully and needlessly harming God’s creation. But, because you don’t want to draw the line there, please at least be on guard because of the terrible truth that the authentic environmental movement is burdened with parasitic eco-fakers, including those who knowingly and unknowingly push what JPII termed the Culture of Death, and those who secretly laugh at even the concept of God and morality (“opium of the people”).

The worst of the lot (and they probably don’t run in your circle) are those who every day place human life, temperance and justice at the disposal of “the cause.” I have seen it up close and personal, and the arrogance and stupidity is criminal. Bad actors like that are why, Lynn, there were two strikes against good people like you when you opened this thread.

 

[lynnvinc]

Per KSU: “Lynn, you needn’t ask for my prayers and good will; you have had them for a long time because I believe your heart, at least, is in the right place–even though you drive a car that exists only because of my bailout tax dollars and which in most cases runs on evil coal-produced electricity (think of all the black-lung disease and polluted air and water and dead fish)”

Per Lynn: “I heard that GM paid back that bailout loan in full”

The truth: foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/

gao.gov/products/GAO-11-471

It seems according to that last article from May 2011 that GM is on a right track of paying back the loan; it just had a good profit year. But even if it didn’t, my biggest issue is the tremendous fossil fuel subsidies and tax-breaks. It grieves me that on April 15th I’m paying for other people to go around harming, polluting, and killing people. I know these subsidies help the economy, bec without them everything would be somewhat more expensive (as they are in all other countries), but to me human life is more important than an economy that encourages profligacy, living high on the hog.

Lynn, I don’t believe you knowingly spun the truth, and it seems you have softened your stance. Maybe we non-Al Gore types are starting to get through to you regarding the mind-boggling amount of deception by unscrupulous, self-serving eco-fakers, and that includes grant-hungry scientists who even you know for a fact have altered/hidden pivotal warming data. You know better than I that even current ways of good old recycling have as many eco cons as pros, and that it exists largely because municipal taxpayers subsidize it and proponents make money.

My point is this: Almost all people highly value the environment. Only moral incompetents don’t try to protect the environment in their own way, and of course there is some moral culpability in purposefully and needlessly harming God’s creation. But, because you don’t want to draw the line there, please at least be on guard because of the terrible truth that the authentic environmental movement is burdened with parasitic eco-fakers, including those who knowingly and unknowingly push what JPII termed the Culture of Death, and those who secretly laugh at even the concept of God and morality (“opium of the people”).

The worst of the lot (and they probably don’t run in your circle) are those who every day place human life, temperance and justice at the disposal of “the cause.” I have seen it up close and personal, and the arrogance and stupidity is criminal. Bad actors like that are why, Lynn, there were two strikes against good people like you when you opened this thread.

I know there are environmentalists who consider humans the scum of the earth, and that the earth and its creatures would be better off without humans (you’d think they all would have committed suicide by now, being that which they detest).

In 1st grade in the early 50s my teacher told us a story about a boy who had a pet snake. Everyone was very mean to him, except the pet snake, which he loved very much, and he grew up to hate people and live as a hermit.

What we really need to solve environmental problems, first and foremost, is love – true Christian agape love. That is why BXVI has called on us to love each other more fully as a way to protect creation in is “If You Want Peace, Protect Creation”:
'…when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits" [from Caritas et Veritate]. Young people cannot be asked to respect the environment if they are not helped, within families and society as a whole, to respect themselves.

It’s sort of like when they tell you on airplanes to put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then attend to others. We need to first love others fully, before they will be able to stop harming self and others through environmental (and other) harms. We need superhuman magnanimous love. We need the love of Jesus, and reflect that love to others. I think that’s the only way the environment can be saved.

This may be difficult for people to understand, given our human nature to run out and address the symptoms, without considering the causes. I wish there were more in the environmental movement who had the ability to understand and enact this Christian love in order to inspire people to save the earth…

 

[KSU]

Lynn, you may already have discovered the link below, or I may have sent it to you in another thread. I don’t recall, and I apologize if you have read it before.

In any case, it’s so well done that it’s been added to the CAF library. Of course, it is neither liberal nor conservative–it is orthodox-- and it will make you better understand where so-called conservative Catholics such as I are “coming from” (as people our age used to say).

catholic.com/magazine/articles/should-catholics-be-environmentalists

 

[lynnvinc]

Thanks for the link. All I can say is that we need more and more good Catholics to become environmentalists so the agenda of various groups won’t be dictated by misguided people. It is a mistake to drop out and do nothing. Drop in and fight for what is right.

RE the children. I’ve long opposed putting heavy environmental stuff on the children, since it is the adults who have caused the problems. I know children are eager learners and can really get into doing environmental things, but we should never put the work or blame on them. If anything we should be apologizing to them for the mess we’ve created and hope they forgive us (but I’m not suggesting that, until they are adults and have better understanding – wouldn’t want to hamper family authority over the little ones).

There is a Happy Earth Day coloring book put out by the EPA we used to hand out (on reused paper) at our parish’s Earth Day event our tiny Environmental Committee hosted. It gave them little suggestions, like using the back side of paper, turning off water while brushing teeth, recycling, etc. The last page with “do’s and don’ts” ended with, “Don’t ever think you are not important to our earth. You are!” We had lots of fun activities for the kids, like planting a seed, making recycled paper, etc However, it is the adults who must seriously buckle down and address the serious environmental problems.

Calling on all Catholic (adults) to join in and become environmentalists and lead the proper way. We shouldn’t remain on the side chastizing environmentalists who promote medical abortions, while continuing with our own lifestyles/actions that also abort and kill children.

There are many types of environmentalisms and many types of environmental problems, including toxic things we use in daily life that put our families at risk. Join some environmental group and when abortion is brought up, explain how aborting/killing children is not a good way to save the earth for the children. How else are they going to understand that, if we stay away from them.

You don’t have to agree with everything people in a group espouse. I’ll give you an example. When a hydrologist joined our little parish Environmental Committee some 12 years ago and I wanted to do a program on global warming, she said she didn’t accept it was happening, that the scientific evidence was not in. We got into (what she fondly called later) a “hissy fight” over it. I blurted out how I didn’t accept the scientific approach of avoiding the FALSE POSITIVE, requiring 95% confidence on an issue before making a claim (and that anyway the 1st studies to reach 95% came out in 1995). I said I was into prudence and avoiding the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address a true problem.

I was getting nowhere with her, so I finally suggested why don’t we focus on solutions, most of which are common to many many problems. We started up a conservation campaign to help people save water and energy…and in the process became good colleagues working well together.

Another example was when members of various churches got together in our area to establish the IL Interfaith CC Committee. They said they wanted to invite people of all religions, and I told them “not the neopagans,” explaining how some student in the late 80s had been very upset with me when I taught about witchcraft in my anthro course; she said, “Well, I’m a witch and I don’t like the way you’re talking about us” (she probably put a hex on me); but the group thought if they wanted to join, then fine (they never did). Little did I realize that years later the #%$#@#% anti-environmentalists were going to accuse me and other enviornmentalists as being neopagans and pantheists (excuse my French).

Slanderous name-calling and ad hominem attacks are not good – we need to join together and attack the problems, not the persons. Besides, burning all those witches is going to put a lot of GHGs into the atomsphere. Let’s lure them by our Catholic goodness into our fold, rather than rail at them.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, you may already have discovered the link below, or I may have sent it to you in another thread. I don’t recall, and I apologize if you have read it before.

In any case, it’s so well done that it’s been added to the CAF library. Of course, it is neither liberal nor conservative–it is orthodox-- and it will make you better understand where so-called conservative Catholics such as I are “coming from” (as people our age used to say).

catholic.com/magazine/articles/should-catholics-be-environmentalists

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.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Infanticide is real, and a real sin. I wonder why the former is a popular rallying cause, and the latter is not.

 

[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.

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.
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