M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I do not judge you.
I challenge you to at least listen to what your Church has to say on this issue.
- Status
I challenge you to at least listen to what your Church has to say on this issue.
L
Lapey
Guest
No I’m not new, but I have to be careful, as I have gotten myself in trouble with the moderators when I get too involved in these types of discussions. People on the left seem so uptight and just think they are of superior intelligence. It’s is simply amazing how blind some can be to truth all around them in the name of their ideology. It is as if this is their religion.
I am fresh off of a one week suspension so I will have to leave this discussion in order to not get myself banned for life.
L
Lapey
Guest
I listen and teach what the Church has instructed me to teach. I preach what Jesus has ordained me to preach as a herald of the Gospel. You preach a different gospel than me. My Church does not say I have to believe in MMCC/MMGW; Al Gore does. I serve Mother Church and Her people in the Love of Jesus Christ. I see real hurt perpetrated by this administration upon good real people who Jesus calls me to speak for. You do not speak for these people.
I have five years of diaconate formation including two semesters of the social justice encyclicals. Two semesters of canon law, along with moral theology, Old and New Testament, etc. In five years of training and three years of a new life as an ordained minister in this Church which you claim to speak for and none of my superiors, professors in seminary or fellow clergy members, priests, deacons, and my bishop have informed me of the official church teaching where I must believe Al Gore is right.
I challenge you to look outside of your personal ideology and remove the blinders to see truth. Until you can see my heart and soul, please do not brush me off with the “go watch Fox News” comment. That is just childish.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The opinions of those in the Pontifical Academy, or this bishop or that concerning prudential issues are just opinions. They are not the “teachings of the Church”.
Yes, the Church teaches that we must be good stewards. But it does not give us details on how to do that. Nor can it, because circumstances differ and scientists change their minds or discover new things. And sometimes scientists are wrong and ordinary peoples’ opinions are right. The Church also teaches that we should aid the poor and be protective of human life. But other than mandating opposition to abortion, the Church does not teach specific governmental policies to get those things done.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Agreed. And my apology for my offensive words.
Especially to Lapey who seemed most offended.
But please share you views on what the Compendium calls “The present environmental crisis”.
In chapter 10 SAFEGUARDING THE ENVIRONMENT
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#III.
THE CRISIS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND THE ENVIRONMENT
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
All this is true. The problem is that oftentimes “men” are more interested in reaping the profits first, and attending to the damage caused in the wake of making those profits second. This happens enough that a necessary role of government has become regulation in its best sense. I am not for mindless, unneeded regulation any more than you are, but I do see a necessity in certain cased for regulation. It’s similar to our need for a police force. If “men” always acted rightly, we would have no need for police.
S
SamH
Guest
What damage does CO2 cause? Will/should the government be allowed to regulate breathing?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If it speaks of MMGW, I don’t see it. Maybe you can direct me to the place where it talks about that. And perhaps that part where it endorses Obama’s plan to make utility rates “skyrocket”. I don’t think either thing is in there, but I could be mistaken.
One wonders a bit about the age of the information utilized in this rather general statement about the environment. For example, it talks about protecting the Amazon basin. There has been a lot of talk about despoiling the Amazon basin, but some later studies seem to establish that a lot more of it was agricultural land back before the European explorers than is the case now. So that might be somewhat dated.
I don’t for a moment doubt that there are places that are really being despoiled; largely in the third world. Nor do I have the slightest doubt that desertification is a serious and growing problem, even on our federal lands in the U.S., and caused by the government itself.
But that doesn’t mean I somehow have to accept every environmental theory there is.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Did I mention CO2 somewhere???
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not against regulation per se. But I do think oftentimes government is more of a problem than it is a solution. Among those landowners I know, they take very good care of the land. As knowledge grows and practices improve, so does the land. Nobody wants to ruin his own land, and particularly not at the cost of land now.
But we can thank the government for the ubiquitous presence of multiflora rose, seresia lespedeza, and even kudzu. We can thank it for the ongoing desertification of a lot of semi-arid land it owns and thinks somehow that an utter lack of husbandry will somehow return it to an imagined “primeval” state that didn’t exist before it took over.
Very fortunately, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers were recently beaten back from essentially taking over the White River watershed in Mo and Ar, to the very last spring and sinkhole. Had they succeeded, it would have been an enormous taking of the private land rights of innumerable people who actually take better care of the land than the government does.
Sometimes the regulators are the most ignorant people involved.
L
Lapey
Guest
Dear Michael,
Offended is too strong and broad a word to describe my reaction, its more along the lines of frustration. The left paints me as racist because I think the jury got it right in the T Martin case with total disregard for what I truly believe and feel about how tragic it was that he was killed and GZ could have saved that kid’s life. The left also thinks I am not obedient or even uneducated because I do not believe in MMGW. I could give you other examples.
We have come to a time and a place where we can’t discuss issues like gentlemen. In our discussion I refused to look at or acknowledge the data you were providing simply because I do not trust the people who sponsor it. There is enough evidence for me to say that the results are tainted I do not care whose name is on it. You do not agree. Why can’t we accept this impasse and continue to talk without the stereotypical remark about Fox News? It is childish.
I work as a deacon in ministry and for an electric utility, I see poor people affected by our current situation daily, real people and real poverty; not numbers added to a stat to scare people into going along with regulations that make the hurt worse.
That’s my only point. You do not have all the answers and if I disagree with you that doesn’t mean I hate the environment; I care about planet earth as much as you do, only difference is I work in an industry that has proven we can do things safely and in a clean manner using the same fossil fuels which the left hates. Just in case no one told you, fossil fuels will be a needed commodity for many decades to come; lets work together to deal with that reality.
You and others simply ignore the real life people I tell you about because it interferes with what you feel is best for them, I get it. But those people are no less real and are hurting more now than ever in recent history. I know, I minister to them. People want to work and provide for their families, many sadly cannot in today’s economy. Go take a field trip to West Virginia coal country if you want to see real life tragedy. Our president promised to shut down the coal industry and he is keeping his promise. Companies are cutting hours and benefits because of the ACA, that is real and this affects real people. It’s not politics.
I’ve got to go. Be back later.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
You’ve put your finger on the problem. It’s not regulation per se, it’s regulators who have far too much power, who are not held to any reasonable standard of accountability, and who are inept, uneducated, ignorant and irresponsible to the point of criminality. Our so-called “representative democracy” would be considered a joke if it were not so serious a problem. Great, great, great reform is needed in all areas of government. I pray it does not come after it has totally collapsed-- what a waste!
S
Seachange
Guest
Obama is not interested in ‘saving the environment’, only in making himself and his cronies very rich. I have no confidence that anything he proposes will do anything but funnel tax money into the pockets of his cronies while depriving hundreds of thousands of people of their livelihoods and making life more difficult for those who can afford it least.
All of his policies take from the poor and give, not just any rich people, but to his rich pals.
In this case, the government is working hand in glove with the *“men” [who] are more interested in reaping the profits first, and attending to the damage caused in the wake of making those profits second. *".
Quite clearly, he is not interested in the damage he is causing to hundreds of thousands of people who were gainfully employed, had homes, etc who are now (or about to be) out of work and losing their homes, the millions of the poor who will not be able to afford energy, or to buy food overpriced because of artificially inflated energy prices, etc.
All these people do not matter to him. All that matters is that (he and) his rich cronies get richer.
Obama “Green Energy” Scandals Widen as Lawmakers Probe Deeper
so far, we have no answers. I suppose he’s pleading the 5th.
The Green Corruption Files
no matter whether there is or is not global warming, whether mankind is responsible or not, nothing Obama has done or proposes to do does anything other than funnel tax money to his cronies and place a monopoly on energy in their hands.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Most of the references are from the 80’s and 90’s so we will not find any talk about Obama’s plan and its possible results. For more timely words we would be listening with interest and respect to current Church leadership. That is not the same as accepting without thought or because we must.
Of course not.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
What was the issue? Mercury? Nutrients?
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I think you may be overstating the case. Republicans are also fond of subsidizing alternative energy companies, only Obama did it with abandon and foolish hope, so much did he buy into his academic bias that throwing money at it would make it blossom, a kind of pecuniary Miracle-Grow.
Also, to proceed with his plan to “fundamentally transform America” (code words for destroying an America he does not like), he would have to work against big money people, namely, the oil companies and the fossil fuel based electric companies-- you do remember that a part of his plan was/is to raise the price of electricity so high that alternative fuels suddenly became economically feasible-- another bit of unpragmatic academic idealism that falls right into the hands of the people you cite who are trying to take control of the world’s energy markets via green technology (scam or not scam, doesn’t matter). But above and beyond all this, I believe he is motivated by a vision of himself as world czar (head of the UN or some other as yet undefined body) with all the world hanging on his every pearl of wisdom feeding through his ever present teleprompters.
I hate to burst his bubble, but we already have a Savior, and His way to world peace is exactly opposite of Obama’s plan. Instead of big government, his kingdom will only come with big hearts, and that means you and me, and all the people of the world, turning back to God and godly living. Every other way ultimately leads to tyranny. Even our own American experiment cannot withstand the pressures, media control, and corrupting influence of the mega-billionaires, unless of course, Americans turn to God and people stand up for what is moral and just in His Eyes. So long as we still have the semblance of a democracy, and that may not be much longer, we still have a chance to save this country.
I think the future of the world is not so much in the hands of our leaders, although they are important and we should pray for them, but more in the hands of a relatively few men and women, mostly women, with rosaries in their hands, and Aves on their lips. That is where the real power lies.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
From the link:
“a rapidly expanding ice sheet in the Arctic has definitively refuted the computer models used by advocates of the theory of man-made climate change.”
That should tell you something. A “rapidly expanding ice sheet” is not a glacier. Glaciers are made up of fallen snow that, over many years, compresses into large, thickened ice masses. Glaciers form when snow remains in one location long enough to transform into ice.
http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/alaska-pictures-usa/alaska-glacier-usa.jpg
Scientists differentiate multi-year ice from both seasonal ice, which comes and goes each year, and “perennial” ice, defined as all ice that has survived at least one summer.
Seasonal ice may have expanded but Perennial ice extent is shrinking at a rate of -12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of -13.5 percent per decade. The thickest ice, multiyear-ice, is declining.
Interactive illustration how perennial sea ice has declined from 1980 to 2012
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
http://www.realclimate.org/QoriKalis.jpg
The metling is a fact. Whether humans have a role in that is the debate.
Ice core samples of glaciers contain air which provides indications of CO2 content through thousands of years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg
S
SamH
Guest
So where are the warm temperatures?
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
in degrees centigrade
- Status