Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Michael_Mayo]

You people spouting all this proof, have chosen to ignore real people’s plight, I don’t understand why. I’m sure you think this is right, but this is a great deception; I will not be deceived.

You do realize that you are implicating your own Catholic Chuch leadership is this deception?

 

[Lapey]

You accused The National Oceanographic Data Center, operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, of manipulating data. Please show some evidence for that accusation.

I owe no such thing. sorry.

 

[Lapey]

You do realize that you are implicating your own Catholic Chuch leadership is this deception?

You do not read very well do you. I did no such thing. The Church is not responsible for the data or the government actions which are deceiving even the Church. Please play fair with me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The pro-life movement’s fruitless seduction by the Republican Party has resulted in cognitive bias to prevent a feeling of guilt about not caring about other issues. The Republican Party is backed by industries whose profit is tied into NOT addressing climate change. These same industries have spent enormous sums of money politicizing the basic science of climatology, with many of the memes generated by the industry’s PR firms and lobbyists reiterated in this thread. This politicization of science has played on the normal (fallen) human tendency toward confirmation bias by providing a pseudoscience narrative to single-issue pro-life voters to justify their voting against protection of the environment.

By painting a picture of government as a nigh-socialist secularist behemoth set on destroying free enterprise and promoting abortion, the single-issue pro-life voter has set aside the need to consider the devastation that issues like climate change can pose to the poor (e.g., the residents of the Irawaddy Delta in South Asia). All without the need to actually consider science. Instead, the narrative rules – government by Democrats is evil and brings on the Antichrist. The single-issue voter tells himself that only by electing pro-life legislators and presidents (who will appoint pro-life judges) will the holocaust of abortion be ended and the world be saved from the secularist nanny state set on establishing forced abortion as the next major way to save the planet from the scourge of population growth. That is, of course, unless the Second Coming comes along to destroy the Abomination of Desolation that is the secularist, environmentalist, feminist, liberal state in which we now live (Obamacare is really the Mark of the Beast, if you believe the internet!).

And it’s not just the environment. The ostensibly pro-life political gang (laughably) quoted Just War Doctrine in 2004 to justify the Iraq War, while insisting that abortion was a “non-negotiable” issue to consider in the election. Pro-life organizations warn about allowing poor women to have more money, because they might be able to afford abortions.

Yet when it comes down to it, most abortions will take place whether or not it’s legal. A greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion in Latin America, where it’s generally illegal, than in the U.S., where it’s generally legal. Peer-reviewed estimates of abortion rates before Roe v. Wade are imprecise, so that on a per capita basis, the abortion rate from 1965 could be equal to today’s. And today, you can buy the abortifacient Cytotec on the black market, here in the U.S., or anywhere in the world. All of these stand as stark evidence that abortion’s legal status only dictates how it happens, not whether it does.

Unless we as a culture learn to value children as more than just commodities or props to our demographic future, we’ll never eliminate abortion. The rate of pediatric homicide by parents fell significantly after Roe v. Wade. Today, children born to mothers who report that the pregnancies that bore them were unintended receive less financial and emotional support from their parents. That’s a cultural sickness that originated at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and will continue unless we Catholics take up the tough job of evangelization, which can never be married to partisan politics. It’s that same culture that causes climate change! Commodification of everything, low cost everything, erosion of all ties other than monetary ties.

You do know the billionaires who have invested in “alternative energy”, and the government as well, have far outspent industries that might oppose reducing energy resources, do you not? That’s why there are so many servient articles supporting the MMGW theory. They’re bought. But now, the majority of Americans, and the majority of scientists reject MMGW.

The abortion rate in the U.S. was far lower prior to Roe vs Wade than it is now. But I will admit the culture has gone rotten, which explains a lot of it.

And when have you seen Obama or the Dems allocate money for unwed mothers’ homes? They don’t care about women. They only care about the money they receive from Planned Parenthood, and their own culture of death.

 

[fnr]

I simply do not buy into MMGW, it is a myth and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the data has been manipulated to prove the other side’s argument. I will not buy into this false science which leads a government to cause what it real pain to real people in this country we thought was free. We are causing more problems for people thorough government feel good politics than any climate change will or has caused.

No I will not site sources for my words, only my opinions and that is good enough for me.

EXACTLY! This debate isn’t about science. It’s about ideology. And ideology can’t be proven wrong, because it is by definition correct for every ideologue.

You dismiss climate change, not because you have any opinions about trends in global mean temperature or areal change in Northern Hemisphere sea ice, but because it must be a plot of the government to take away our freedom and drive our jobs overseas. But then when the Supreme Court asserts that the constitution implies a right to privacy (as explicitly cited in 1965’s *Griswold v. Connecticut *and implicitly argued in 1923’s Meyers v. Nebraska), it’s lunacy. The government should be able to go through a doctor’s records to ascertain whether an abortion has occurred (never mind the ban on doctors testifying against their patients). Then the government is righteous and caring for the least of these and exercising its rightful authority. Even if there are just as many abortions taking place on the black market.

 

[Ridgerunner]

EXACTLY! This debate isn’t about science. It’s about ideology. And ideology can’t be proven wrong, because it is by definition correct for every ideologue.

You dismiss climate change, not because you have any opinions about trends in global mean temperature or areal change in Northern Hemisphere sea ice, but because it must be a plot of the government to take away our freedom and drive our jobs overseas. But then when the Supreme Court asserts that the constitution implies a right to privacy (as explicitly cited in 1965’s *Griswold v. Connecticut *and implicitly argued in 1923’s Meyers v. Nebraska), it’s lunacy. The government should be able to go through a doctor’s records to ascertain whether an abortion has occurred (never mind the ban on doctors testifying against their patients). Then the government is righteous and caring for the least of these and exercising its rightful authority. Even if there are just as many abortions taking place on the black market.

I have, for the last few years, seen all the charts and graphs and counter-charts and counter-graphs. I have seen the pro-MMGW articles and the anti-MMGW articles, this head count and that head count.

The thing is disputed; strongly disputed.

And, for whatever reason, if MMGW is real, we have been given a reprieve for the last few years that the MMGW promoters didn’t see coming.

Two things can’t be denied, though:

1. Making utility bills “skyrocket” is going to hurt people, and some will be hurt badly by it. For whatever reason, the MMGW proponents don’t seem concerned about that, even though they have to know it will. And those who want fuel bills to skyrocket, one has to realize that affects the price of everything; food particularly. I honestly doubt that people who speak so blithely of reducing carbon emissions have any idea how much in the way of petroleum products it takes to raise a corn crop, to get it to a mill, to process it and ship it to the end user.
2. Those who promote it the most strongly and influentially do not in any way live as if they believe in it themselves.

Now, I’m a country fellow and I spend a lot of time outdoors in all kinds of weather. I work outside in the sun when summer is at its hottest, and in the snow or rain when it’s winter’s coldest. To me, there is no perceptible warming other than in the cycles that warm and then cool.

It’s not ideology to me. If I was convinced by the MMGW proponents, I would be convinced and would say so. I’m just not convinced. I will admit, however, that the evident cynicism of the rich and powerful who promote it puts me off very much.

 

[fnr]

You do know the billionaires who have invested in “alternative energy”, and the government as well, have far outspent industries that might oppose reducing energy resources, do you not?

Let’s see the numbers. What “spending” are you describing?

That’s why there are so many servient articles supporting the MMGW theory. They’re bought. But now, the majority of Americans, and the majority of scientists reject MMGW.

Um… what? Again, show me the numbers. I want to see this paper trail proving that scientific journals have been bought.

Even better, show me a single global climate model that includes all major atmospheric, geological, and oceanographic processes that influence climate that accurately models global mean temperature from 1900-1979, but that does not predict that higher CO2 concentrations over the period of 1980-2060 result in higher global mean temperatures. You can’t because such models do not exist.

The abortion rate in the U.S. was far lower prior to Roe vs Wade than it is now.

That’s only based on a selective citation of all the peer-reviewed literature from pre-Roe. In another thread, I cite peer reviewed publications from before Roe v. Wade. Citing that thread, which describes how imprecise the estimates were:
*
Range in 1965: ~ 200,000 to over 1,000,000
Population on July 1, 1965: 194,302,963 (census.gov/population/est…opclockest.txt)
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 1 to 5

Range in 1973 (Cited on NRLC): 615,831 (CDC) to 744,600 (Guttmacher)
[THIS IS THE YEAR OF ROE V. WADE]
Population on July 1, 1973: 211,908,788
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 3 to 4

Here’s the Census Bureau’s estimate of annual abortions in 2007: 1.210 million
Here’s the population from July 1 2007: 301,621,157
Estimate of abortion per 1000 population in 2007: 4

Here’s the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate from 2012 (referenced on lifeissues.org): 1,212,400
Here’s the population from September 17, 2012: 314,395,013
Estimate of abortions per 1000 population in 2012: 4*

But I will admit the culture has gone rotten, which explains a lot of it.

Well, I’m glad we can agree on that.

And when have you seen Obama or the Dems allocate money for unwed mothers’ homes? They don’t care about women. They only care about the money they receive from Planned Parenthood, and their own culture of death.

This all just sounds like confirmation bias to me.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I owe no such thing. sorry.

Well, Lapey, then you offer nothing but your own opinion.

And I few pages back (#714) I did indeed post references to popes and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding climate change. So they also are implicated in the “deception”.

At least Sam gave me something to think about. And I really do hope that Roy Spencer is on the right track. But I don’t think so. Either way, we are better off to be better stewards of the environment.
That **is **Church teaching.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let’s see the numbers. What “spending” are you describing?

Um… what? Again, show me the numbers. I want to see this paper trail proving that scientific journals have been bought.

Even better, show me a single global climate model that includes all major atmospheric, geological, and oceanographic processes that influence climate that accurately models global mean temperature from 1900-1979, but that does not predict that higher CO2 concentrations over the period of 1980-2060 result in higher global mean temperatures. You can’t because such models do not exist.

That’s only based on a selective citation of all the peer-reviewed literature from pre-Roe. In another thread, I cite peer reviewed publications from before Roe v. Wade. Citing that thread, which describes how imprecise the estimates were:
*
Range in 1965: ~ 200,000 to over 1,000,000
Population on July 1, 1965: 194,302,963 (census.gov/population/est…opclockest.txt*)
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 1 to 5

Range in 1973 (Cited on NRLC): 615,831 (CDC) to 744,600 (Guttmacher)
[THIS IS THE YEAR OF ROE V. WADE]
Population on July 1, 1973: 211,908,788
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 3 to 4

Here’s the Census Bureau’s estimate of annual abortions in 2007: 1.210 million
Here’s the population from July 1 2007: 301,621,157
Estimate of abortion per 1000 population in 2007: 4

Here’s the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate from 2012 (referenced on lifeissues.org): 1,212,400
Here’s the population from September 17, 2012: 314,395,013
Estimate of abortions per 1000 population in 2012: 4

Well, I’m glad we can agree on that.

This all just sounds like confirmation bias to me.

I will readily admit that there are probably thousands of articles and studies and citations of studies, and opinions on both sides of this. They have been cited here on CAF hundreds, if not thousands of times.

I have looked at a fair number of them. They conflict. It’s just not a certitude, and there’s plenty of reason to doubt. Just because some posters have access to environmentalist lists of articles or have time to go find all the articles supporting their point of view, means nothing in itself. It just means some people have spent a lot of time on it. Confirmation bias at its extreme.

On CAF, this is reminiscent of nothing so much as a high school debate. “My card is better than your card”, one will announce. “No, my quote is better than your quote” the other will argue. It would be amusing if there weren’t adverse consequences to suppressing energy use in the real world.

It’s a debate, and it sure isn’t going to be resolved here anymore than the latest high school debate topic is going to be resolved here.

But again, the Obama Plan (which isn’t a plan, really, but a set of assertions) if carried out will, one assumes, cause obama’s desire to “make utility bills skyrocket” to be a reality. He really is proposing to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, and posits a generality of “alternative energy” sources to fill the gap; sources that are not economically viable on their own.

And this while other countries are abandoning the whole thing.

This is going to make life much more expensive for people, ruinously so for the poor and the elderly. I recall seeing Democrat Senator Joe Manchin on TV saying Obama “betrayed” the people of West Virginia who mine coal for a living, or did it for a living until the EPA started shutting the mines down. And for a disputed theory we’re going to do all of that?

I say “remediating global warming” is the goal of those whose hearts are ice cold.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Leaving it with you all now. Be of good cheer!

 

[JimG]

I will readily admit that there are probably thousands of articles and studies and citations of studies, and opinions on both sides of this. They have been cited here on CAF hundreds, if not thousands of times.

I have looked at a fair number of them. They conflict. It’s just not a certitude, and there’s plenty of reason to doubt. Just because some posters have access to environmentalist lists of articles or have time to go find all the articles supporting their point of view, means nothing in itself. It just means some people have spent a lot of time on it. Confirmation bias at its extreme.

On CAF, this is reminiscent of nothing so much as a high school debate. “My card is better than your card”, one will announce. “No, my quote is better than your quote” the other will argue. It would be amusing if there weren’t adverse consequences to suppressing energy use in the real world.

It’s a debate, and it sure isn’t going to be resolved here anymore than the latest high school debate topic is going to be resolved here.

fBut again, the Obama Plan (which isn’t a plan, really, but a set of assertions) if carried out will, one assumes, cause obama’s desire to “make utility bills skyrocket” to be a reality. He really is proposing to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, and posits a generality of “alternative energy” sources to fill the gap; sources that are not economically viable on their own.

And this while other countries are abandoning the whole thing.

This is going to make life much more expensive for people, ruinously so for the poor and the elderly. I recall seeing Democrat Senator Joe Manchin on TV saying Obama “betrayed” the people of West Virginia who mine coal for a living, or did it for a living until the EPA started shutting the mines down. And for a disputed theory we’re going to do all of that?
I say “remediating global warming” is the goal of those whose hearts are ice cold.

This is what is so sad. This administration wants to kill jobs in the coal industry, in fact to kill the coal industry and damage the oil industry, and severely increase the price of energy, thereby hurting the poor most severely, whose utility bills are to skyrocket.

 

[estesbob]

Well, Lapey, then you offer nothing but your own opinion.

And I few pages back (#714) I did indeed post references to popes and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding climate change. So they also are implicated in the “deception”.

At least Sam gave me something to think about. And I really do hope that Roy Spencer is on the right track. But I don’t think so. Either way, we are better off to be better stewards of the environment.
That **is **Church teaching.

Being better stewards does not translate into supporting massive tax and regulation schemes that transfer money from the poor tpo the rich and the Govt

 

[JamesCaruso]

I was not changing the subject I was asking you to explain how that shift takes place. I take the above as an admission that you don’t know.

Yes, you switched from claiming that fossil fuel was the cleanest form of energy, to asking how would we implement a shift to cleaner forms of energy. These are two entirely different questions.

I assume you realize that fossil fuel is not the cleanest fuel, but that it is currently among the cheapest fuels and is probably the most versatile, since it can be used not only to produce electricity, but also to operate machinery and automobiles.

I don’t believe I ever made a claim to know the way to switch from fossil fuels to cleaner alternative fuels.

In my opinion, the government has been on the right track for many years. First, it has taken steps to reduce pollution from burning fossil fuels. Coal fired electric plants have installed scrubbers to reduce pollutants, especially SO2 emissions. Automobiles have emission control devices. At the same time, government has invested in the development of new schemes for eliminating fossil fuel pollutants, such as, sequestration for coal-fired plants. Also, for many years under both political parties, government has invested in research and development of alternative fuels-- wind power, solar power, fuel cell technology, nuclear fusion, wave technology, etc. Most new electric generation over the past 20 years has come from gas-fired turbines, which although fossil, is cleaner burning than oil or coal.

We have also pushed in the direction of more nuclear capacity. This could be the answer to all our future energy needs, however, we need to find a solution to the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Yucca Mountain solution apparently has failed since the deadline for storage there has long since passed, and no action at all has taken place. Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored at the 30 nuclear plant sites around the country. The storage pits for this nuclear material were meant to be temporary. Now there are stockpiles far greater that ever anticipated, and no solution is in sight. Also, some of these sites are on geological fault lines, not a good idea IMO, and many are located near large population centers. Currently, there are 30 new planned sites for nuclear plants. But, solve these problems, and nuclear appears to be the way to go.

Of course, it does not answer your question about automobiles, unless of course, we move more toward the electric car, which is why I brought up the Tesla success. But, as I said before, it is not a solution yet for the common man who cannot afford an $80,000 vehicle. That is why I suggested turning in the meantime to natural gas to fuel automobiles, trucks and buses. Natural gas is fossil fuel, but it burns cleaner than gasoline. Also, we have huge supplies of natural gas in this country. It is already used in many vehicles like buses, and there is no reason cars cannot be retooled to use this fuel. It’s far better idea than artificially raising the price of oil to make alternative fuels “economically feasible” which they in reality are not.

I believe the planners still have high hopes for an expansion of alternative fuels, and I an sure we will make breakthroughs in this area over the years, We need to continue the research and we need to ensure that fossil fuel interests do not squash efforts along these lines. But other that that, we can’t make innovation happen, we can only keep up the good work, just as we do in other matters, cancer research and other medical research come to mind.

 

[Lapey]

Well, Lapey, then you offer nothing but your own opinion.

And I few pages back (#714) I did indeed post references to popes and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding climate change. So they also are implicated in the “deception”.

At least Sam gave me something to think about. And I really do hope that Roy Spencer is on the right track. But I don’t think so. Either way, we are better off to be better stewards of the environment.
That **is **Church teaching.

I build my opinion on life experience and studying truth. That is fine by me and I owe you nor President Obama nothing more. My life experience has shown me first hand real people suffering real pain, right here and right now in this once great country. I see people like Al Gore become billionaires on the backs of these same people. I see others with ties to evil regimes like Michael Moore and George Soros making/guiding policy in this country and I choose to reject their ideas and lies. You can say whatever you like about me or my opinions, but they are based in Godly truth.

We are currently a nation of “sheeple” who follow the false shepherd. Being good stewards of God’s gifts does not entail stealing from those who cannot take care of themselves to give to those with power; that is not at all Godly.

PS. I almost forgot, “Church teaching”? Really? Please provide any Church document where we are to believe as matter of faith and/or morals the myth of MMGW, or MMCC, whichever you choose to call it today. By your implication I am in sin/schism by not believing this deception. So sorry you think that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, you switched from claiming that fossil fuel was the cleanest form of energy, to asking how would we implement a shift to cleaner forms of energy. These are two entirely different questions.

I assume you realize that fossil fuel is not the cleanest fuel, but that it is currently among the cheapest fuels and is probably the most versatile, since it can be used not only to produce electricity, but also to operate machinery and automobiles.

The “cleanliness” of any form of energy is a function of how people deal with it. As I have mentioned before, back in the late 19th Century, the pollution from all the horses was deadly serious, causing a lot of illness. People had not devised efficient ways to dispose of all the manure, urine and dead animals.

Even human muscle energy can be nasty. I recall reading long ago that the plains Indians’ village sites were so befouled by the time the Indians moved on that one could smell them from miles away.

Nuclear can be deadly or not deadly, depending on how it’s handled.

Since the batteries used in electric cars require a long supply chain of heavy metals, battery-operated cars’ cleanliness is a function of how well those deadly metals are handled along the way, what it takes to make the batteries, and how they’re disposed of after they wear out.

 

[fnr]

This is what is so sad. This administration wants to kill jobs in the coal industry, in fact to kill the coal industry and damage the oil industry, and severely increase the price of energy, thereby hurting the poor most severely, whose utility bills are to skyrocket.

Fact: burning fossil fuels produces both traditional air pollutants (like soot and smog) and greenhouse gases.

Fact: traditional air pollutants affect people’s health. The American Heart Association’s statement on air pollution and cardiovascular health attests to this. In 2001, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that retrofitting power plants in the Midwest alone would prevent 300 premature deaths, 2000 emergency room visits, 10,000 asthma attacks, and 100,000 incidents of daily upper respiratory symptoms. Since then, reduced air pollution has been found to increase life expectancy in the U.S. – with improved air quality responsible for 15% of the extension in U.S. life expectancy from the 1970s to the early 2000s. A follow-up paper confirmed that since 2000, life expectancy has continued to improve as a result of lower U.S. air pollution.

Fact: Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases. According to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, electricity generation accounts for 33% of greenhouse gas emissions, transportation for 28%, industry for 28%, and commercial and residential buildings for 11% and agriculture for 8%.

About 80% of emissions from electrical generation come from coal combustion, with the rest coming from natural gas combustion. Over 90% of transportation emissions come from oil combustion. About 2/3 of industry emissions come from natural gas, and about 1/3 from petroleum. Most residential and commercial CO2 emissions come from natural gas combustion.

As to your assertion that “the administration wants to kill jobs in the coal industry and damage the oil industry,” would you also suggest that every president that supported free trade, from Reagan to Obama, wanted to kill jobs in U.S. manufacturing? The difference in the coal and oil industries is that the production and use of oil and coal unintentionally lead to unavoidable harms to other people. Is that fair? What about all the subsidies we give to the energy sector, from military protection of oil shipping lanes to low royalty rates charged for oil and gas production on Federal land?

And poor people suffer the most from pollution, and suffer the most during natural disasters like hurricanes and floods.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I build my opinion on life experience and studying truth. That is fine by me and I owe you nor President Obama nothing more. My life experience has shown me first hand real people suffering real pain, right here and right now in this once great country. I see people like Al Gore become billionaires on the backs of these same people. I see others with ties to evil regimes like Michael Moore and George Soros making/guiding policy in this country and I choose to reject their ideas and lies. You can say whatever you like about me or my opinions, but they are based in Godly truth.

We are currently a nation of “sheeple” who follow the false shepherd. Being good stewards of God’s gifts does not entail stealing from those who cannot take care of themselves to give to those with power; that is not at all Godly.

PS. I almost forgot, “Church teaching”? Really? Please provide any Church document where we are to believe as matter of faith and/or morals the myth of MMGW, or MMCC, whichever you choose to call it today. By your implication I am in sin/schism by not believing this deception. So sorry you think that.

What I said was Catholic Church leadership says we need to act quickly regarding global warming while you say it is a “great deception”. Is Church leadership then not perpetuating that “great deception”?

And Catholic teaching states, as I said, we need to be better stewards.

How about prayerfully listening more to your Church and less to Fox News

Compendium of Social Teaching:
#466
It is a responsibility that must mature on the basis of the global dimension of the present ecological crisis and the consequent necessity to meet it on a worldwide level, since all beings are interdependent in the universal order established by the Creator.

1. The authorities called to make decisions concerning health and environmental risks sometimes find themselves facing a situation in which available scientific data are contradictory or quantitatively scarce. It may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the “precautionary principle”, which does not mean applying rules but certain guidelines aimed at managing the situation of uncertainty.

Care for the poor and suffering?

1. The environmental crisis and poverty are connected by a complex and dramatic set of causes that can be resolved by the principle of the universal destination of goods, which offers a fundamental moral and cultural orientation. The present environmental crisis affects those who are poorest in a particular way, whether they live in those lands subject to erosion and desertification, are involved in armed conflicts or subject to forced immigration, or because they do not have the economic and technological means to protect themselves from other calamities.
2. Serious ecological problems call for an effective change of mentality leading to the adoption of new lifestyles, “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of the common good are the factors that determine consumer choices, savings and investments”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The

No, we are not required to accept AGW just because church leadership encourages action regarding it. We are free to discent. But do so thoughtfully and with a good meditation on the compendium as well as studies from the Pontifical Academy of Science.

casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2014/sustainable.html

casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2011/glaciers.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I said was Catholic Church leadership says we need to act quickly regarding global warming while you say it is a “great deception”. Is Church leadership then not perpetuating that “great deception”?

And Catholic teaching states, as I said, we need to be better stewards.

How about prayerfully listening more to your Church and less to Fox News

Compendium of Social Teaching:
#466
It is a responsibility that must mature on the basis of the global dimension of the present ecological crisis and the consequent necessity to meet it on a worldwide level, since all beings are interdependent in the universal order established by the Creator.

1. The authorities called to make decisions concerning health and environmental risks sometimes find themselves facing a situation in which available scientific data are contradictory or quantitatively scarce. It may then be appropriate to base evaluations on the “precautionary principle”, which does not mean applying rules but certain guidelines aimed at managing the situation of uncertainty.

Care for the poor and suffering?

1. The environmental crisis and poverty are connected by a complex and dramatic set of causes that can be resolved by the principle of the universal destination of goods, which offers a fundamental moral and cultural orientation. The present environmental crisis affects those who are poorest in a particular way, whether they live in those lands subject to erosion and desertification, are involved in armed conflicts or subject to forced immigration, or because they do not have the economic and technological means to protect themselves from other calamities.
2. Serious ecological problems call for an effective change of mentality leading to the adoption of new lifestyles, “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of the common good are the factors that determine consumer choices, savings and investments”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The

No, we are not required to accept AGW just because church leadership encourages action regarding it. We are free to discent. But do so thoughtfully and with a good meditation on the compendium as well as studies from the Pontifical Academy of Science.

casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2014/sustainable.html

casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2011/glaciers.html

Your quoted sources talk about the environment generally, scattergunning every hazard except MMGW. There are a lot of environmental threats, particularly in the third world; increasing desertification due to improper grazing being not the smallest of them.

Your first citation from the Pontifical academy cites, among other things, melting glaciers. That’s a subject of debate. iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

It also mentions increased methane eructations from cattle. Possibly the writers of the article (curiously dated May, 2014) are not aware that, in the U.S. at least, the cattle population is at the lowest point it has been in 50+ years. Whose cattle, then, are they talking about? They don’t say.

There is no foundational information for any of the statements. They’re all just conclusions, presumably based on something else.

 

[Lapey]

How about prayerfully listening more to your Church and less to Fox News

This statement shows your agenda and your arrogance towards those who do not agree with you. You have no idea of who I am or how much I do hands on work with the poor and less fortunate, yet you judge me. Sad, we cannot disagree these days without throwing labels and personal attacks.

You have labeled me as disobedient to my Church in which I am a member of the clergy, a Fox News I guess Republican and a few other generalizations. Can’t we just talk about our differing opinions rather than personal attacks?

I have mentioned in this thread and others several life experiences to you and others where real people are being hurt by the policies of this administration, but you launch accusations rather than acknowledge them.

Sorry if I ruined your day by daring to bring in truth.

 

[SamH]

This statement shows your agenda and your arrogance towards those who do not agree with you. You have no idea of who I am or how much I do hands on work with the poor and less fortunate, yet you judge me. Sad, we cannot disagree these days without throwing labels and personal attacks.

You must be new to these discussions with people that proclaim MMGW. That is pretty much how they treat all people with a differing view (it doesn’t even need to be an apposing view).