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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
objectiv1 said:
Please, praise be to God! I can’t believe what I am reading. There is no sin here. None, may I repeat, none. Take it from someone who is a long time environmentalist, eco-activist, conducted research for the US Forest Service and thoroughly educated in Environmental Science. It is obvious that you possess a good conscience so just live in moderation and responsibly. By concentrating on God’s laws you will do just fine. Have you ever heard of a Saint abusing God’s creation, Earth? Whether it is true or not you have every right to deny climate change and to leave it up to the experts to debate over it until the next ice-age. If any person on this planet has the audacity to suggest that you are sinning on this matter please direct that someone to me.
Click to expand...
Agree wholeheartedly! The question isn’t whether it is a sin. Being wise about our resources is just a good thing to do. Do we really need to invoke a threat of Divine wrath in order for us to do something good?

And who cares if global warming is real or not? Does it improve our world to be wiser about our resources? Yes. Then who cares if it is a real threat? Are we afraid we are going to make better decisions for nothing? It’s Pascal’s wager. If it proves to be a lie, would we really feel so bad about reducing our dependence on unsustainable resources?
 
lynnvinc said:
You’re right. Environmentalists are not as worried about conventional oil (which is running out) as they are about coal, tar sands (bitumen), and oil shale. These could wreak havoc both in terms of local pollution and global warming.
Click to expand...
It sometimes seems to me that a main thrust of the environmental movement is simply to make energy more expensive. Or to discourage cheap forms of energy production in favor of more expensive ones. If that is a case, it would be a disservice to the poor.
 
pnewton said:
The problem is, that you are not alone in saying this, nor alone in saying the opposite. As of yet, I am not a believer, primarily because I do not see the connections with death (historically, raised temperature has increased life), nor a significant connection with Man, when the planet produces changes on a scale that diminishes our contribution. I look back over the past billion years.
Click to expand...
So do climate scientists – use paleoclimatology over hundreds of millions of years, that is – to help understand our current situation.

Hansen’s STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN helps us understand climate science (but is a bit dense and difficult in parts). Hansen explains how climate scientists use knowledge from paleoclimatology, current evidence, computer models, and theorys (such as laws of physics) to understand our current climate change.

Our problems now are that:

  1. ]we are at the warm part of the glacial-interglacial cycle, which could serve as a launching pad into climate hysteresis or even runaway warming**;
    *]the solar irradiation has been slowly increasing over the eons on the sun’s way to self-destruction in some billions of years (so we have more warming (name removed by moderator)ut than in the distant past);
    *]our pumping of GHG into the atmosphere has been lickity-split in geological time schemes – much faster than any time in the past; and
    *]our “shootgun” of methane frozen in the arctic permafrost and ocean hydrates is more fully loaded than in past great warmings like the PETM, 55 mya (million years ago). Once the warming we are causing starts seriously melting the methane ice cages (and there are signs this is beginning), that would give a big boost to the warming. Methane, tho 25 times a more potent GHG than CO2, only stays in the atmosphere about 10 years, but it degrades to CO2, a portion of which can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.
    *Climate hysteresis (great warming for 100,000s of years) has happened in the past – such as the end-Permian extinction 251 mya, when 95% of life on earth died; and also the PETM 55 mya, when a large portion of life on earth died. Life on earth eventually rebounded, and here we are today. However, we should not take solace in that, but rather understand that it is a sin to knowingly cause such a loss of life.

    Another threat caused by these great warming episodes is that great warming causes oceans to go super-anoxic (oxygen depleted), which causes a certain bacteria to turn the methane into hydrogen sulfide – a deadly gas. It is thought that 251 mya HS was what nearly wiped out the rest of life after the warming had done its damage. A good book on this is Benton’s WHEN LIFE NEARLY DIED: THE GREATEST MASS EXTINCTION OF ALL TIME.

    **Runaway warming, would be as on Venus – a warming that just keeps warming and stays there until all life on earth is ended. Only a few scientists are suggesting this is a possibility due to our current warming and GHG emission scenarios.______________________________________________

    The point is, we should not be monkeying around with these things, but as Christians take a prudent course of doing what we can to reduce the risk of these harms. It confounds me to no end why people would risk these things, when mitigation could turn out to be the best thing ever for us and our economy. People are afraid to face the scientific facts, and afraid to even consider that there could be good and wise solutions.
 
Seems that a certain faction really wants this to be declared a sin, where in fact none exists.

If only they were so zealous about real sin.
 
“We have a place where if you are a decent shot you can limit out in 20 minutes or so.”

Thank you very much, DLG. I live in central Oklahoma, and hunt 25 minutes from the house. Born and raised in Ohio, I fell in love with the upper and central reaches of the Cuyahoga River. When in 1969 an oil slick and trash in the lower section of the river caught fire, my (and the country’s) attention turned to cleaning up our waters. With Congressioal support, we did just that, and the work goes on.

But the eco-nuts, in the government especially, harm our cause tremendously by demonstrating to the American people that justice, fairness, common sense and temperance are not considerations when “fighting for the environment”. You can find horror stories everywhere now. That just turns off the support of right-thinking people in the authentic environmental cause.

Anyway, DGL, Go Buckeyes! (Which leads to interesting family gatherings in Texas and OK).
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Seems that a certain faction really wants this to be declared a sin, where in fact none exists.

If only they were so zealous about real sin.
Click to expand...
If only we were as zealous about doing good as we are about defining sin. We spend a lot energy trying to determine how gluttonous, how wasteful, how self-concerned we can be before something becomes a “sin”. Let’s just stop trying to define sins (like we get to make that determination anyway) and concentrate on loving God and loving God’s creation.
 
lynnvinc said:
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.
Click to expand...
You ask that this not be a discussion of whether ACC is actually happening or not but only that "If " is happening is it a sin to not do anything about it or deny it. That makes no sense to me for if ACC is not happening your question is unnecessary and by saying what you do you imply that ACC is happening when there is no scientific evidence that that is the case.
 
Almagore said:
You ask that this not be a discussion of whether ACC is actually happening or not but only that "If " is happening is it a sin to not do anything about it or deny it. That makes no sense to me for if ACC is not happening your question is unnecessary and by saying what you do you imply that ACC is happening when there is no scientific evidence that that is the case.
Click to expand...
There is overwhelming scientific evidence for ACC – not sure where you are getting your science; I’ve been studying this for over 2 decades, and learned about the greenhouse effect some 5 decades ago, well before it ever became a “political issue,” during a time when people of good will were willing to listen to the scientists.

So I guess a better questions might be, “if the vast majority of top climate scientists tell us the evidence is quite robust that ACC is happening and that its consequences are already harming and killing people and are expected to greatly increase this harm in the future, but a person refuses to accept what they say and continues emitting high levels of GHGs, without any effort to reduce these, is that a sin?” Seems to me it is.

Only if one has never heard about ACC, or has only heard what the denialists have to say, but has never ever heard from the people who say it is happening (such as JPII, BXVI, and many scientists), then it is not a sin and Jesus will say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” That point was made beautifully by some posters early in this thread.

If people have heard from at least one person that ACC is happening and dangerous to human life, but has refused accept that and to seek further information from legitimate scientific studies in respected, peer-reviewed journals (or only accepts not-so-legit studies that reconfirm their lack of culpability in this sin), and has refused to reduce his/her GHG emissions, then I assume that is a sin, maybe even a mortal one.

I also know that slanderous and mean-spirited attacks against Al Gore, climate scientists, and Pope Benedict XVI (the latter engaged in by some non-Catholic anti-environmentalists) is also a serious sin.

Simply saying something is not happening does not make it not happen, and does not make one a truth-teller. There are many 1000s of pages of scientific studies that indicate it surely is happening, and these warrant respect and careful reading.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Seems that a certain faction really wants this to be declared a sin, where in fact none exists.

If only they were so zealous about real sin.
Click to expand...
I’ve always been a goody-two shoes pain in the ___ to everyone since I was about 4 years old – and have never ever for one instance been popular, because of that.

When I became a Carmelite I learned I should focus more on my own sins than on others’…and I guess that’s why I came to take on the ACC cause some 22 years ago. I wasn’t having abortions, but I was harming and killing people through my GHG emissions.

I spent a “dark night of the soul” lent in 1990 when I understood the harm I was causing. In my mind’s eye was an emaciated African drought victim Madonna and Child image, the drought partly caused by the GHGs I was emitting. But I had no ideas about how to reduce that harm. I felt like the Good Thief on the cross next to Christ that entire lent – so sorry for the harm I was doing and suffering people, but unable to come down off that cross and do something about it, trapped in structures of high GHG emissions. Then on Good Friday I understood I was the soldier pounding in the nails.

I prayed and prayed for God to show me some solutions…and slowly slowly over the last two decades God has led me to many many solutions. I still have more to do, so I am not off the hook (cross), but there is hope that I will continue to find small and great God-given solutions – the Little Way of Environmental Healing.

I would have stopped trying to tell others about ACC (bec I think I only irritate people), except I found out it would be a sin to not to inform people about it. So again I continue in my goody-two-shoes mode, and am quite unpopular–as here. Praised be the name of the Lord.
 
sedonaman said:
It’s not up to them to prove it is not true; it’s up to the advocates to prove it is. To date, most advocates appear to lack the same training and rely on fear instead. The only thing they have in the way of authority is name recognition due to fame. Some authority.
Click to expand...
👍👍

The problem those of the AGW hypothesis took is… in bypassing scientific steps.

Feeding a model with an unproven hypothesis…presents bias. That bias - contaminates exponentially much like sighting a rifle - 1 millimeter off at the sights - exponentially miles off down range ].

Assuming sensitivities without observational confirmations / repeatable evidence e.g Water vapor - Negative or positive feedback? Solar measured in TSI only - ignoring all other solar influences…etc…is bias.

Correlation ASSUMED Causation.

There was a 17 year of correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise…BUT the present 17 year span shows none.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12140

LARGE VIEW HERE

The defense is given aerosols and soot cause this present 17 year span - BUT this is merely shuffling the pea. The problem is… the biased models didn’t project this. They never will project such changes because the hypothesis is biased toward “CO2 causes warming”.

The missing “Hot Spot”…It’s now - Hidden deep in the ocean…The problem is…How does heat transfer from one place - without leaving a heat trail? NO conveyor of this missing deep ocean heat found. It just magically is there? - so deep we can’t measure it convenient , no? ].

And on.

Until, we get to the AGW scientific view of their own ethics and that of others they agree with. Climategate 1 & 2 and just lately, Peter Geick.

1 The science is post-normal.
2 CAGW Ethics, are anti-social.

And now they press the Religious as AGW is a “Social Conscript” Responsibility.

If these believers really thought AGW was a “Social Conscript”
, They’d clean up their science…their ethics…accountability … their transparency. AFTER ALL…they are first to yell for accountability from PRIVATE sources – yet hinder all attempts at PUBLIC transparency.
 
lynnvinc said:
There is overwhelming scientific evidence for ACC – not sure where you are getting your science; I’ve been studying this for over 2 decades, and learned about the greenhouse effect some 5 decades ago, well before it ever became a “political issue,” during a time when people of good will were willing to listen to the scientists.
Click to expand...
I guess you can answer a simple question then…is water vapor a “Positive or Negative feedback”. 20 Years of climate education should be able to understand the importance of this question…?

I still listen to Scientists 😉 What I don’t listen to is echo-chambers.
 
Linvc,are you sure you live in Texas? You must be the other Texan who doesn’t beleive ACC is not a joke

I have a high-milage Mitsubshi since I am poor and can’t afford to replace batteries in a hybrid.

I have a good friend who drives a hybrid Honda,excellent milage and he can afford to replace batteries.

But the “ahl bidness” rules in this part of the state and is quite profitable to the employees, they don’t want to hurt their gravy train. And so about all you see on the local roads are huge gas-guzzing pick ups, and SUVs, and hummers, no one cares about anyone but themselves.

I don’t know the answer, but I recycle, ride in a high milage car, and do anything else I can to help. I do know it’s depressing living in an “oilagarchy”, and I think it does not matter who you vote for, becuase oil rules.
 
lynnvinc said:
I’ve always been a goody-two shoes pain in the ___ to everyone since I was about 4 years old – and have never ever for one instance been popular, because of that.

When I became a Carmelite I learned I should focus more on my own sins than on others’…and I guess that’s why I came to take on the ACC cause some 22 years ago. I wasn’t having abortions, but I was harming and killing people through my GHG emissions.
Click to expand...
After all your post - you still focus on ** your perceived others’ sins**. IMO.

IMO it’s a tad stretch of the imagination to say otherwise.

The EPA was asked recently, when they claimed they would be x amount ] of lives saved over last year. **They could not produce 1 body when confronted by Congress **.

Just as you can not support your statement above “but I was harming and killing people through my GHG emissions.”

I HAVE PROVED that GHG reduction schemes have killed people …and displaced thousands more. And energy poverty is rampant because of poor green energy policies, in developed countries the sins of this society ].
I would have stopped trying to tell others about ACC (bec I think I only irritate people), except I found out it would be a sin to not to inform people about it. So again I continue in my goody-two-shoes mode, and am quite unpopular–as here. Praised be the name of the Lord.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, do you think its truthful to repeat unsubstantiated claims - as factual… to promote a cause?
 
andrewstx said:
I don’t know the answer, but I recycle, ride in a high milage car, and do anything else I can to help. I do know it’s depressing living in an “oilagarchy”, and I think it does not matter who you vote for, becuase oil rules.
Click to expand...
Hiyas 🙂

Are you under the impression that Oil Companies are behind Climate Realists?
 
andrewstx said:
Climate “realists” :rolleyes:

I really have no idea. But it could possibly be so, or not.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a Climate Realist. Climate is chaotic, as we understand it now.
Thus there is no need for the redundant word “change” as climate has always changed. To pretend different, with the usage of the word “change”, is nonsense. And used as a tool to sell that - Nature no longer controls climate.

I know there are many Natural variables that “play to” climate and weather. And it’s scientific fraud to call CO2 the main driver of climate without empirical repeatable observational evidence.

I’m a Climate Realist 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top