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

[kimmielittle]

Again, how is willful ignorance about abortion different from willful ignorance about global warming?

Logic fail based on subjective assumptions.

You are assuming global warming can be adverted - we have no such evidence.
You are assuming global warming is controlled mainly by man and his CO2 emissions - we have no such evidence.

I repeat Good Stewardship is independent of one’s belief in AGW - CAGW claims.

You are attempting to associate Good Stewardship As does Lynn ] to ones belief in an unproven hypothesis.

Believe it or not: There are plenty of Good Stewards - Good People - who just don’t believe AGW - CAGW has scientific evidence for it’s unsupportable claims.

AND many of us…are not too happy with some… who try to broad brush us as “sinners” “deniers”…simply because we don’t agree with you / those who do.

In cotrast, there is no papal pronouncement about insider trading – although it’s trivial to show that it violates 7th commandment.

You answered your own question. Stealing is a Commandment,

 

[lynnvinc]

My take on Mr Archers paper?
Brilliantly done …It’s how I’d write a hypothesis paper if I didn’t want it t be falsified for 1000 - 100,000 years. My model runs say it’s true, after all.

Question: Would it be rude to ask if Mr Archer has any empirical observational measurements - that supports his claim?

Oh, wait that’s a requirement of Normal Science.

Here’s the problem. We only have this one earth on which we are running an experiment, so of necessity we have to use a “natural history” approach to some extent. Therefore, the need to look at past warming hysteresis times when the warming lasted for over 100,000 years (and the CO2 was high during that time).

As I’ve stated many many times, I do not need 95% confidence AGW is happening, or that a portion of my CO2 will be staying in the atmosphere 100s, 1000s, even, 100,000 years. Archer’s analysis are good enough for me, that I must do all I can to reduce my GHG emissions.

Some people won’t do so, even if there is 99% confidence, or 101% confidence .

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s the problem. We only have this one earth on which we are running an experiment, so of necessity we have to use a “natural history” approach to some extent. Therefore, the need to look at past warming hysteresis times when the warming lasted for over 100,000 years (and the CO2 was high during that time).

As I’ve stated many many times, I do not need 95% confidence AGW is happening, or that a portion of my CO2 will be staying in the atmosphere 100s, 1000s, even, 100,000 years. Archer’s analysis are good enough for me, that I must do all I can to reduce my GHG emissions.

Some people won’t do so, even if there is 99% confidence, or 101% confidence .

Asking Again…name someone who isn’t reducing their GHG emissions…

 

[Ender]

The morality of GHG emissions is a very serious problem. The choice basically amounts to killing people in the Thirld World through climate-induced wars and famine by continuing business as usual or throwing the advanced countries into deep recession by draconian emission controls. Neither is acceptable.

… your side has failed to accept the underlying principle.

If you consider the “underlying principle” to be that you are right and we are wrong then it is true that we have not accepted it. Nor is there any reason to accept that the only options are the two you have presented. It seems to me that the options are, if you believe that AGW is true, to take efforts to mitigate it (which will be both futile and ruinously expensive), or if you believe that it is false try to prevent those who believe it from imposing useless and economically devastating restrictions.

There is no such thing as “the morality of GHG emissions.” This is a scientific and practical problem, not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[kama3]

If you consider the “underlying principle” to be that you are right and we are wrong then it is true that we have not accepted it. Nor is there any reason to accept that the only options are the two you have presented. It seems to me that the options are, if you believe that AGW is true, to take efforts to mitigate it (which will be both futile and ruinously expensive), or if you believe that it is false try to prevent those who believe it from imposing useless and economically devastating restrictions.

False dichotomy. One can both believe that AGW is true and oppose (uneffective and devastating) restrictions. I know it’s possible, because that’s my position.

There is no such thing as “the morality of GHG emissions.” This is a scientific and practical problem, not a moral issue.

Yup, Catholic morality is focused on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage and generally does not extend beyond human sexuality. Everything outside that realm is a fair game. That’s what I learned from this forum anyway.

So sad, really. Catholicism used to be the most philosophically advanced religion.

 

[kimmielittle]

The only reason climate scientists are going public and suffering our idiodic questions and silly hypotheses

So it’s an idiotic question to ask why their models can’t hindcast accurately? Why can’t their models forecast accurately? Why some must use deception to promote AGW claims? Why the “pea”… “goal-post” has to be continuously moved to support the AGW hypothesis? Why new hypothesis need to be introduced - and new meanings… because physics don’t / doesn’t support claims that the original hypothesis was built on… or stated Mr Archer - Atmospheric residence time - acidification - GW - AGW - Climate Change - CAGW - ACC ]?

BTW: Mr Archer, and you haven’t falsified the approximate 5 year Resident Time of CO2 in the Atmosphere…He just created a new hypothesis to dismiss…

(as if we know better, and they haven’t thought of all the variables)

Then why doesn’t Nature always adhere? There IS MUCH not understood or even presented by them.
That is a silly remark

They are probably shocked that people would not want to leave a viable world for their progeny.

AND we are shocked of acts committed by the cartel.

They are probably shocked that people would not want to leave a viable world for their progeny.

AND this is the faulty thinking of the “cause”…Name someone who doesn’t want a viable environment. These are stupid claims to make IMO

That they persist in their science and outreach, despite the vitriol against them

Climategate and FOIA papers show a much different accounting…It was not Climate Realists who contrived / manipulated acts against others…now was it?

They are the heroes of today.

There can be no doubt…they are the heroes of some - you included. After all, the ends used by them - justify them …their cause. Of course, there were many who thought Mr Nixon deserved a pardon…

Yet, I have yet to witness one of the cartel to voluntarily retract a fatally flawed paper they wrote…

I guess,it goes to ones moral / ethical compass…eh?

 

[kimmielittle]

So sad, really. Catholicism used to be the most philosophically advanced religion.

I think you are mistaken…or hold a flawed perspective of what philosophy is.

One of the greatest attributes of philosophy is doubt…Not belief / agreement.

Philosophy has an important role in criticizing the practices and assumptions upon which scientific inquiry depends.

It questions lack of empirical evidence supporting scientific claims.

IMO AGW’ers error in trying to introduce philosophy into Normal Scientific debates… EXAMPLE: “If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?”

Why? Because AGW’ers want us to believe / agree to / with their “cause” - While the very nature of philosophy… introduces doubt.

Your above statement says…those that don’t agree with you … aren’t philosophical.

 

[lynnvinc]

False dichotomy. One can both believe that AGW is true and oppose (uneffective and devastating) restrictions. I know it’s possible, because that’s my position.

Yup, Catholic morality is focused on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage and generally does not extend beyond human sexuality. Everything outside that realm is a fair game. That’s what I learned from this forum anyway.

So sad, really. Catholicism used to be the most philosophically advanced religion.

Agreed on both counts. I’ve actually found that tho I was willing back in 1990 to sacrifice for the life of the world that I’ve saved $1000s by reducing our GHGs down 60% or more below our 1990 emissions – and that’s not counting the fact that since the 70s oil crunch (when I learned oil would be running out) our always buying a home within one or two miles of work and close to shops. Over 12 years we reduced by about a third up in IL, and now in TX since 2002 on GreenMountain 100% wind energy, I figure we’ve reduced about two-thirds.

With our Chevy Volt (which we bought 2 months ago) I figure we’ve reduce even further (we haven’t been to the gas station yet, but are driving almost exclusively on our wind-powered electricity…at $1.30 per 40 mile charge).

We did not have to freeze in the dark or swelter in the heat, and I attribute the whole thing to God and His gracious guidance and for listening to my prayers

I would suggest people read NATURAL CAPITALISM – see natcap.org . There was one business that was able to cut its energy consumption in part of its plant by 90% without lowering productivity. And 3M sent me a video about their 3P program (pollution prevention pays) – where they thought they would be paying big bucks by meeting upcoming regs, they ended up saving $millions. And there are plenty of examples; I even have an archaeological example about how “bad times” (slave labor and trees becoming scarce and costly about 1000 years ago in the Mediterranean) make people find solutions that end up saving the environment. I’m thinking these are not anecdotal, but a principle that contracdicts common sense. Like, if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, all things will be added unto you. That’s the principle.

Climate change skeptics, denialists, and contrarians seem to be afraid because of their tight clinging to the material world. Let go and let God.

---

RE Catholics’ only concern being about abortion and sex-related sins, there is some truth to that. A priest in a seminary told our friend (who was studying to be a priest many decades ago) that if a woman had the enjoyment (of sex) and got pregnant (as if it is always enjoyment for women and not a matter of seduction, date rape, and rape), then she should be punished by bearing and rearing a child. It is not only a “sex=sin” issue, but also a hatred and disdain for women issue. And children are a punishment, so it is a child-hating issue as well.

That could perhaps help explain why about a third of Catholics in the U.S. refuse to admit or mitigate AGW. Perhaps subconsciously they want the children to die out and women to suffer (women and children are the ones currently suffering the most from AGW, and projected to suffer very greatly from it in the future).

Now I know JPII and BXVI have been very good on the topic of women, as well as on AGW, but their messages just don’t trickle down to the laity; there are lots of priests, even bishops who de facto oppose the popes’ messages on AGW, or (as in the case of my parish priest) are afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics in the parish.

There is tremendous good and beauty in Catholicism, but you have to really dig for it on your own, which I had to do being a convert. I waited decades, hoping I’d learn about the saints and all the riches of the Catholic faith from Catholics, then I realized I’d have to dig for myself. And it is a very wonderful and beautiful religion – the best – and the Catholics who are going against the Holy Father in his call for us to mitigate AGW are perhaps metaphorically smearing feces on the Church, making it stinky and ugly, pushing people out of and away from Catholicism.

 

[Ender]

Yup, Catholic morality is focused on abortion, contraception, and gay marriage and generally does not extend beyond human sexuality. Everything outside that realm is a fair game. That’s what I learned from this forum anyway.

Let me say it again: there is no moral issue involved here; there is nothing having to do with Catholic or any other form of morality. We are not faced with ethical issues on this topic but with scientific and prudential ones.

So sad, really. Catholicism used to be the most philosophically advanced religion.

You probably should be more circumspect in discussing a topic with which you are so unfamiliar.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

climate change skeptics, denialists, and contrarians seem to be afraid because of their tight clinging to the material world. Let go and let god.

---

re catholics’ only concern being about abortion and sex-related sins, there is some truth to that. A priest in a seminary told our friend (who was studying to be a priest many decades ago) that if a woman had the enjoyment (of sex) and got pregnant (as if it is always enjoyment for women and not a matter of seduction, date rape, and rape), then she should be punished by bearing and rearing a child. It is not only a “sex=sin” issue, but also a hatred and disdain for women issue. And children are a punishment, so it is a child-hating issue as well.

That could perhaps help explain why about a third of catholics in the u.s. Refuse to admit or mitigate agw. Perhaps subconsciously they want the children to die out and women to suffer (women and children are the ones currently suffering the most from agw, and projected to suffer very greatly from it in the future).

Now i know jpii and bxvi have been very good on the topic of women, as well as on agw, but their messages just don’t trickle down to the laity; there are lots of priests, even bishops who de facto oppose the popes’ messages on agw, or (as in the case of my parish priest) are afraid of the rush limbaugh catholics in the parish.

There is tremendous good and beauty in catholicism, but you have to really dig for it on your own, which i had to do being a convert. I waited decades, hoping i’d learn about the saints and all the riches of the catholic faith from catholics, then i realized i’d have to dig for myself. And it is a very wonderful and beautiful religion – the best – and the catholics who are going against the holy father in his call for us to mitigate agw are perhaps metaphorically smearing feces on the church, making it stinky and ugly, pushing people out of and away from catholicism.

utter nonsensical and disrespectful imo

 

[lynnvinc]

utter nonsensical and disrespectful imo

What is it were the opposite way around. Catholics were really into mitigating AGW and accepting the science, and led the way around the world, and we were on track to reduce CO2 down to 350 ppm (with the well-being index and economy improving…since our current economy based on waste & profligacy is headed to the dumps); but they were denying abortion was a sin, that the fetus was a human, etc.

I’d be into the abortion issue (which now a good portion of my parish is in), not the AGW issue (which now my parish is not into at all).

There are many good causes. I tend to be drawn to those for whom there are few or no people involved – like archiving contamination-related stories in the Rio Grande Valley (at least these should be saved for history, like stories of those suffering from Agent Orange, which was produced here in a poor Hispanic neighborhood, near two schools).

I do also participate in the other issues for which there are many participants, but due to time limitations and my first obligation (after family and work) being to my secular Carmelite community, I don’t do so as much as with important issues with few or no participant.

So I mean no disrespect; I would say the same (dirtying the Church) about the pro-AGW mitigaters in this hypothetical parish who deny abortion is a sin or killing people, as I am now saying about Catholics who deny AGW is harming/killing people & will do so much much more in the future, if we don’t get our act together and mitigate it.

 

[pnewton]

So I mean no disrespect; I would say the same (dirtying the Church) about the pro-AGW mitigaters in this hypothetical parish who deny abortion is a sin or killing people, as I am now saying about Catholics who deny AGW is harming/killing people & will do so much much more in the future, if we don’t get our act together and mitigate it.

The Catholic Church has a clear teaching that abortion is evil. The Catholic Church has no position on the reality of climate change or its causes. We might as easily speculate on the morality of the designated hitter as to draw an analogy between these two.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The Catholic Church has a clear teaching that abortion is evil. The Catholic Church has no position on the reality of climate change or its causes. We might as easily speculate on the morality of the designated hitter as to draw an analogy between these two.

Except that global warming is a reality, and so doing nothing about it when something could easily be done is in faact quite wrong. And that the Catholic Church has no official position on it does not excuse anyone’s behavior: it does take a position on the general responsibility of people toward the environment and toward their fellow human beings, and if how we act contributes to their death or suffereing, it’s wrong regardless of whether the Church takes a specific position on it (it is not, after all, a scientific body; but the Pope has, if you’d noticed, made multiple statements about climate change and our responsibilities regarding it, so that should tell you something). There’s a reason we have consciences and the faculty of reason, because not every specific moral decision is outlined exactly in the catechism.

 

[kimmielittle]

Except that global warming is a reality, and so doing nothing about it when something could easily be done is in faact quite wrong.

The easiest - ethical - moral first step should be demanding accountability and transparency in climate science and the politicization of climate science.

And that the Catholic Church has no official position on it does not excuse anyone’s behavior:

The easiest - ethical - moral first step should be demanding accountability and transparency in climate science and the politicization of climate science.

it does take a position on the general responsibility of people toward the environment and toward their fellow human beings, and if how we act contributes to their death or suffereing,

The easiest - ethical - moral first step should be demanding accountability and transparency in climate science and the politicization of climate science.

but the Pope has, if you’d noticed, made multiple statements about climate change and our responsibilities regarding it, so that should tell you something)

The Holy Father HAS talked about Natural Disasters…Good Stewardship…Conservation.

He has not talked supporting of Cap and Trade…supporting AGW - CAGW claims and schemes… BUT I’ve showed you this before.

There’s a reason we have consciences and the faculty of reason, because not every specific moral decision is outlined exactly in the catechism.

The easiest - ethical - moral first step should be demanding accountability and transparency in climate science and the politicization of climate science.

I believe you will find HONESTY…is covered in the Catechism.

If you can’t or won’t demand honesty at the base…you have no ethical / moral debate …“cause”.

I’ll warn you of another time the science was lacking accountability and transparency…AND we DID move on an “easy solution”.

Rachel Carson could be considered as an indirect mass murder for her preposterous theory that DDT caused cancer. because of her book, The Silent Spring, this life-saving bug spray was removed from the market for over 40 years.

As a result malaria came back to Africa and the Far East with a powerful vengeance that has probably taken over 10-10 million lives since then.

Talk about genocide!

Scrub the Lipstick off the Pig! …We might then listen to you and your “cause”…until then you have no ethical / moral “cause”.

 

[kimmielittle]

So I mean no disrespect;.

Sorry, I don’t believe that

You have called me names just because I’ve challenged your use of unsupportable claims.

Because, I’ve asked you and others to demand this: The easiest - ethical - moral first step should be demanding accountability and transparency in climate science and the politicization of climate science.

Because, I believe this: "In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.”

IMO You believe in the “cause”…and when you can’t debate the ‘cause’ honestly…you resort to …

 

[kimmielittle]

Except that global warming is a reality,

You are so sure of this and CO2’s contribution toward that warming.

Can you quantify the CO2 feedback?

 

[rdscheirer]

Western world, Europe and the US have birth rates that are so low that they will not sustain the population-China is looking at the same with their aging population and their one child policy - only demographic that is growing is the mohammadans- guess who wins in the end- the one with the most numbers.Climate change is all about trying to control the citizens of the at risk countries- the first to be done away with when the mohammadens take over are the very same ones who favor climate control and anything else they don’t like- gay marriage?

 

[rdscheirer]

Western world, Europe and the US have birth rates that are so low that they will not sustain the population-China is looking at the same with their aging population and their one child policy - only demographic that is growing is the mohammadans- guess who wins in the end- the one with the most numbers.Climate change is all about trying to control the citizens of the at risk countries- the first to be done away with when the mohammadens take over are the very same ones who favor climate control and anything else they don’t like- gay marriage?

 

[kama3]

The Catholic Church has a clear teaching that abortion is evil. The Catholic Church has no position on the reality of climate change or its causes

So if Talmud… er, sorry, Cathechism is silent on the issue, then this is not a sin. That’s exactly the kind of thinking that crucified rabbi was criticizing. Seems we have come full circle… or we have never moved from the starting position, which means he really died in vain.

We might as easily speculate on the morality of the designated hitter as to draw an analogy between these two.

For God’s sake. This board has no problem discussing theological status of aliens: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420362 There is no proof that any aliens exist at all, yet, people here have no problems accepting the theoretical premise that aliens may exist.

But a thread involving moral implications of global warming (of which there is more proof than there is of aliens) has already run for 24 pages and gone nowhere, because some participants are taking issue with its premise.

If you see no problem with this, then I am afraid we have deeper issues here than global warming.

 

[kimmielittle]

But a thread involving moral implications of global warming (of which there is more proof than there is of aliens) has already run for 24 pages and gone nowhere, because some participants are taking issue with its premise.

If you see no problem with this, then I am afraid we have deeper issues here than global warming.

You are so sure of this and CO2’s contribution toward that warming.

Can you quantify the CO2 feedback?

Donja think you should be able to?