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

[kimmielittle]

Comedy, thanks kimmie.
Actaully I am a stroke pateint.
But I don’t think that anyone who does not agree with you and other deniers of ACC is a joke.

Sorry to hear you have had a stroke…please take good care of yourself

As you can see from my last post - I’m not a denier of Climate or even of mans contributions to our environment.

IMO The claims of CAGW don’t hold up to scientific integrity. THERE IS a huge difference

 

[andrewstx]

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

Thanks for explaining what climate realist actually means, I had no clue. Honestly I was thinking the worsst.

Your expalation was very reasonable.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks for explaining what climate realist actually means, I had no clue. Honestly I was thinking the worsst.

Your expalation was very reasonable.

You are very welcome

 

[pnewton]

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.

Unfortunately much of climitology is dubious science, on both ends. Too many scientists are funded by either industry or ecology groups. This will always make for poor science as any real scientist knows when he is honest with himself. People find evidence that they want to find. That is why the best science is done blindly, though this is a rarity in the field of climatology.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well, if you’re going to save the planet, you’ll have to exact some drastic but necessary measures.

You’ll need to rid the planet of thos useless eaters, especially those in Third World countries, who are consuming far too many precious planetary resources. Lucky for you, you have powerful allies who stand ready and eager to serve, by dismantling the arcane ideals of the Church, thus paving the way for such planet-saving measures as banning those polluting autos and doling out only one bicycle per family, severely regulating businesses, and abortion on demand for all those unhip, resource-gobbling undesirables.

You can do it. Just ask Margaret Sanger.

 

[kama3]

It takes no great miracle to prevent the proverbial launching of all the nuclear arsenal. Indeed, it is the latter that would take a miracle.

You have that backwards, unfortunately.

You may want to research a guy named Stanislav Petrov. In 1983, he was a Soviet commander on duty who received an alarm from an early warning system, reporting American ICBM launch. He judged the alarm to be false and did nothing. However, by doing nothing, he violated his orders, which were to report the alarm to the top commanders (who would duly issue the launch order). The army didn’t know if he should be rewarded for preventing the war, or punished for breaking his orders, so he was moved to a different job and later forced into early retirement.

Here’s the kicker: Petrov was not supposed to work that shift. He swapped with a colleague who had a family occasion.

Cool, eh?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Since the worldwide average temperature has gone down 2 degrees fahernenheit in the past 200 years I would say there is no such thing as global warming but as far as I know there could be a such thing as enviremental and/or ecological poisoning and that could be a mortal/venial sin eg: excess slaughter of sharks farming too much coral for coloring and dyes in nail polish food etc… Severely damage going or ruining the natural order of things. So yes there would be circumstances where that would apply.

Shalom
God bless

 

[lynnvinc]

After all your post - you still focus on ** your perceived others’ sins**.

It is a sin of mine not to inform others about their sins. So it does relate to my sins.

 

[pnewton]

You have that backwards, unfortunately.

You may want to research a guy named Stanislav Petrov. In 1983, he was a Soviet commander on duty who received an alarm from an early warning system, reporting American ICBM launch. He judged the alarm to be false and did nothing. However, by doing nothing, he violated his orders, which were to report the alarm to the top commanders (who would duly issue the launch order). The army didn’t know if he should be rewarded for preventing the war, or punished for breaking his orders, so he was moved to a different job and later forced into early retirement.

Here’s the kicker: Petrov was not supposed to work that shift. He swapped with a colleague who had a family occasion.

Cool, eh?

That is a missle, not the sum total of the world’s arsenal. A quaint story, but I still think there would be far more Petrov’s that not.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry for not reading Kimmielittle’s post re “proof” ACC is a hoax. I’ve been reading them for over a year now, so I’m fairly familiar with the arguments.

When the actual climate scientists (the bulk of them…not the Exxon/Koch funded ones) start coming out with such proof, I’ll listen. Just bec a person has a degree in engineering, dentistry, or even geology, does not make him/her a climate scientist.

I wouldn’t want you all out of hand to believe me either, but at least look into the science…the real science in the top-tier sci journals and IPCC.

 

[KevinAK]

@lynnvinc
I would recommend you talk to people about it and focus on the common sense things that make sense to do regardless of whether man-made climate change exists. Everyone should be recycling if they have easy access to a recycling center for example. The new light bulbs are much more efficient and will save people money with the only downside being they take longer to fully light up when you turn them on. Your not going to get anyone to stab themselves in the leg though in the name of man-made climate change if they don’t believe in it. I don’t believe in it, but I can tell you I can appreciate making smart choices that save everyone money.

I am not sure I believe the claims about the new bulbs. In any event it should be our choice to by them. The government has no business mandating their purchase by eleiminating he old ones.

Actually since global warming is a lie the sin would be to spread the doctrine.

 

[kimmielittle]

It is a sin of mine not to inform others about their sins. So it does relate to my sins.

AND once again, I’ll remind you you are neither a Priest, The Holy Father, or The Catholic Church, NOR are you a Jury.

It is COMPLETE IGNORANCE, on your part, to presume to know, OR JUDGE another person sin.

I’d be more concerned in Judging people without knowing the facts.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry for not reading Kimmielittle’s post re “proof” ACC is a hoax.

It seems to be a habit of yours to rephrase what people say…It’s a nasty habit IMO

I’ve invited you, many times, to provide evidence that Correlation equals Causation.

Simply put: produce the empirical observational evidence for CAGW claims.

I’ve been reading them for over a year now, so I’m fairly familiar with the arguments.

Familiar - maybe…able to fault them - you have not been able to do…INCLUDING your favorite Real Climate folks / scientists.

When the actual climate scientists (the bulk of them…not the Exxon/Koch funded ones) start coming out with such proof, I’ll listen.

Actually the post you are referring to…are NOAA stats - go figure

Just bec a person has a degree in engineering, dentistry, or even geology, does not make him/her a climate scientist.

This goes to ignorance…engineering is far more precise in the sciences than the CAGW hypothesis…THERE ARE NO FUDGE FACTORS… ACTUAL HUMAN LIVES ARE DEPENDANT

I wouldn’t want you all out of hand to believe me either, but at least look into the science…the real science in the top-tier sci journals and IPCC.

Here again, you mistake a political rag IPCC ] as a scientific journal.

 

[kimmielittle]

I am not sure I believe the claims about the new bulbs. In any event it should be our choice to by them. The government has no business mandating their purchase by eleiminating he old ones.

Actually since global warming is a lie the sin would be to spread the doctrine.

I find it truly ironic that EPA pushes against Mercury - Yet introduces it, via Curly Bulbs, into baby nurseries - homes.

 

[kimmielittle]

Since the worldwide average temperature has gone down 2 degrees fahernenheit in the past 200 years I would say there is no such thing as global warming but as far as I know there could be a such thing as enviremental and/or ecological poisoning and that could be a mortal/venial sin eg: excess slaughter of sharks farming too much coral for coloring and dyes in nail polish food etc… Severely damage going or ruining the natural order of things. So yes there would be circumstances where that would apply.

Shalom
God bless

To be sure, there are KNOWN environmental and social problems, that as Good Stewards, we are to address.

IMO Environmentalists have been pawned by shirt-tailing to an UNPROVEN Hypothesis and it’s claims.

 

[kimmielittle]

Unfortunately much of climitology is dubious science, on both ends. Too many scientists are funded by either industry or ecology groups. This will always make for poor science as any real scientist knows when he is honest with himself. People find evidence that they want to find. That is why the best science is done blindly, though this is a rarity in the field of climatology.

This is why “double blind” research is done in Normal Science.

Climate Models are not blind…they are programed, from the start, to reflect the bias,.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, if you’re going to save the planet, you’ll have to exact some drastic but necessary measures.

You’ll need to rid the planet of thos useless eaters, especially those in Third World countries, who are consuming far too many precious planetary resources. Lucky for you, you have powerful allies who stand ready and eager to serve, by dismantling the arcane ideals of the Church, thus paving the way for such planet-saving measures as banning those polluting autos and doling out only one bicycle per family, severely regulating businesses, and abortion on demand for all those unhip, resource-gobbling undesirables.

You can do it. Just ask Margaret Sanger.

Add Peter Singer…UN

 

[rdscheirer]

Even if “anthropogenic global warming"does exist- the communications between the “believers” and the vilifiction of the " nonbelievers” is suspicious in the least. Why did the “believers” leave out data from as many as 10 stations in Siberia for their “data”. Seems to me that Anthropogenic Global Warming is as much faith as “science”.

 

[lynnvinc]

It seems to be a habit of yours to rephrase what people say…It’s a nasty habit IMO…

I REALLY don’t have time to read anything you write & sift thru the exact rebuttals. We’ve been flooded out with our hot water heater bursting, and all our work has been delayed by a week or so, & just don’t have time to address each and every attack on climate science.

But here is something that can help people make up their minds when they read this or that reason why ACC is not real:

• skepticalscience.com/argument.php
• realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
• desmogblog.com/

Hope this helps people who are sincerely seeking to learn the truth about climate change.

As for the science, I’d suggest reading articles on climate change in SCIENCE, NATURE, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), PHILOSPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A, and other such top tier science journals, as well as the IPCC reports, esp Working Group I (re the science).

I know there were a couple of mistakes in the Working Group II sections (impacts), such as claiming Himalayan glaciers would all melt within this century (a mistake that was discovered by a glaciologist, not a skeptic, and was corrected).

For our purposes here in considering whether contributing to ACC is a sin, it doesn’t matter how long it takes for impacts to harm or kill people. There is no statute of limitations on murder or sin – whether the people we harm and kill through our emissions today are people of this century, next century, next millennium, or 100,000 years from now. We won’t have to face earthly justice if we’ve already passed on by then, but we may have to face God’s justice, if we are not repentant of our sins.

You may think I’m wacko, but I believe there is a hell, and St. Teresa of Avila had some supernatural insight re it. It’s not a place one would want to be for eternity. We need to keep our noses squeaky clean, and repent and confess when we stumble (which is quite frequent for me).

Whether the Church has specifically said it is a serious sin to cause people harm and to die through ACC is not as important as the 10 Commandments telling us it is a sin to kill. I think it doesn’t really matter the exact details of HOW we kill.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Because you have to use the word “IF”, it isn’t a sin at all. There would be no action or omission to act with knowledge.