Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[FollowChrist34]

As to the political objectives, we know a few things this administration and its like wish to do. As Obama said, he wants to make utility bills “skyrocket”. What does that mean? Well, so far, it means an additional $1500 per year to people in my state because he has had the EPA virtually ban coal for electrical generation, notwithstanding that the coal being used is as “clean” as coal comes out of the earth; far, far cleaner than the lignite that’s in increasing use in Germany. And their pollution controls are state of the art here. But Obama still wants it stopped entirely. It’s no mystery, he has said it himself.

CAFE standards (mileage for cars) are targeted at levels which, a few years from now, will prevent manufacture of virtually every type of pickup truck now on the road. It will make a difference in rural areas. You can’t, for example, haul a wagon load of hay with a tiny engine. Products and food are hauled by vehicles. You can’t increase the cost of fuel without increasing the cost of that food and those products.

We know those things so far. But we don’t know everything because this administration doesn’t tell the truth about its objectives.

I don’t think you understand who, in America, disfavors MMGW theory. Opposition to the theory is not considered “barbaric” or “anti-scientific” despite herculean efforts on the part of the environmentalist left to picture it as such. The majority of Americans now either do not believe in MMGW at all, or believe it’s not really a serious problem. Interestingly, the majority of American meteorologists have essentially the same view.

Also, while in Europe, politicians who push MMGW may act as if they believe it themselves, in America, they don’t. One small example was Obama sending a large jet plane to St. Louis simply to pick up a pizza and fly it to Washington, DC. Another, of course, is Al Gore’s flying around in a private jet and having seven large homes that he keeps heated or cooled year-round. That kind of thing bespeaks personal disbelief on their part.

My reference to Sharia was misunderstood. I did not say MMGW had anything to do with Sharia. What I was trying to communicate is that there is a big difference between paying lip service to some tenet or theory and living with the consequences of its becoming law. So, while everybody is willing to respect Islam as a religion, no westerners want it as a legal and political system. In similar manner, while many may give a nod to MMGW, nobody wants to live with the consequences of the hard left being able to force their “mitigation” plans with the power of the state.

Well, just a caveat for our international listeners. If someone shouted from a street corner in Seattle, MMGW is a hoax, he would very likely be locked up and put through a psychological evaluation. In my neck of the woods it is widely accepted, not questioned at all. But the people who accept it without question are the EXACT same people who accept without question the right to an abortion, SSM, legalized euthanasia, legalized pot, etc. It is an article of faith for liberal secularists. That of course includes academics, a big and growing chunk of corporate America, and the media - goes without saying. I have believed in it and not believed in it. The people that amaze me the most are the ones who don’t care. They usually say they believe in it - saves trouble and stress.

 

[ProVobis]

Arctic sea ice is down, antarctic sea ice is up.

The earth warms and cools in long cycles with or without human beings.

I like the way you think. Unfortunately it seems like yearly average is the major concern, without any thought to regional and long-range components.

 

[ishii]

Gary Johnson
Jill Stein
Virgil Goode

Now, you might think they are reasonable choices (and some of them clearly aren’t) but, the point is, if I am thinking of voting for one of these, who is it better to discuss this with, you or my confessor? Clearly, you don’t claim to have any special moral expertise. So discussing with a confessor is a very prudent option.

Anyone who thinks Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Virgil Goode were good choices to effectively oppose the culture of death - abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc. is deluded.

Let me put it this way - enlisting the help of the above candidates against the Democrat candidate in 2012 would be like the Kurds enlisting the help of say, Switzerland in the fight against ISIS instead of enlisting the help of the US.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

Real good chance it was volcanic activity. 1 major eruption can wipe out an entire years worth of CO2 reductions.

That could be but it also can act as a sunblock, reducing solar warming for a few years. Maybe we’re getting too obsessed with carbon dioxide levels to take note of this? Just a thought.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, just a caveat for our international listeners. If someone shouted from a street corner in Seattle, MMGW is a hoax, he would very likely be locked up and put through a psychological evaluation. In my neck of the woods it is widely accepted, not questioned at all. But the people who accept it without question are the EXACT same people who accept without question the right to an abortion, SSM, legalized euthanasia, legalized pot, etc. It is an article of faith for liberal secularists. That of course includes academics, a big and growing chunk of corporate America, and the media - goes without saying. I have believed in it and not believed in it. The people that amaze me the most are the ones who don’t care. They usually say they believe in it - saves trouble and stress.

I’m not greatly surprised to see this. And where I live, it would be the exact opposite on all issues.

I am not, however, persuaded that big corporate America believes in MMGW. It’s just expedient to say it because one might get tax credits or government grants for “doing something green”, or simply getting better access to power. I remember how Obama got the lion’s share of big company corporate support in the last election, but I very much doubt those people really believed in Obama’s professed desire to “fundamentally change America” in a left wing way.

But it can all be funny sometimes. Claire McCaskill, a howling liberal Democrat senator is a MMGW “denier” according to her left colleagues. Why? Because it’s hard in Missouri to sell MMGW. So she just goes where the wind is blowing with that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Anyone who thinks Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Virgil Goode were good choices to effectively oppose the culture of death - abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc. is deluded.

Once again, you are not infallible, so this is purely your opinion and nothing else. You are entitled to your opinion, but it does not make it correct just because you possess it, anymore than those who holdthe opinion that social security does not violate subsidiarity. The Church in her wisdom allows us to make our own choices at the ballot box and we can make our choices either based on long run consequences or short run consequences. It also allows us to look at probable outcomes ahead of time and allows us to make the best decision given the constraints we have.

Let me put it this way - enlisting the help of the above candidates against the Democrat candidate in 2012 would be like the Kurds enlisting the help of say, Switzerland in the fight against ISIS instead of enlisting the help of the US.

Ishii

In some battles, even the US is not going to be of much help.

 

[Micosil]

As to the political objectives, we know a few things this administration and its like wish to do. As Obama said, he wants to make utility bills “skyrocket”. What does that mean? Well, so far, it means an additional $1500 per year to people in my state because he has had the EPA virtually ban coal for electrical generation, notwithstanding that the coal being used is as “clean” as coal comes out of the earth; far, far cleaner than the lignite that’s in increasing use in Germany. And their pollution controls are state of the art here. But Obama still wants it stopped entirely. It’s no mystery, he has said it himself.

CAFE standards (mileage for cars) are targeted at levels which, a few years from now, will prevent manufacture of virtually every type of pickup truck now on the road. It will make a difference in rural areas. You can’t, for example, haul a wagon load of hay with a tiny engine. Products and food are hauled by vehicles. You can’t increase the cost of fuel without increasing the cost of that food and those products.

We know those things so far. But we don’t know everything because this administration doesn’t tell the truth about its objectives.

I don’t think you understand who, in America, disfavors MMGW theory. Opposition to the theory is not considered “barbaric” or “anti-scientific” despite herculean efforts on the part of the environmentalist left to picture it as such. The majority of Americans now either do not believe in MMGW at all, or believe it’s not really a serious problem. Interestingly, the majority of American meteorologists have essentially the same view.

Also, while in Europe, politicians who push MMGW may act as if they believe it themselves, in America, they don’t. One small example was Obama sending a large jet plane to St. Louis simply to pick up a pizza and fly it to Washington, DC. Another, of course, is Al Gore’s flying around in a private jet and having seven large homes that he keeps heated or cooled year-round. That kind of thing bespeaks personal disbelief on their part.

My reference to Sharia was misunderstood. I did not say MMGW had anything to do with Sharia. What I was trying to communicate is that there is a big difference between paying lip service to some tenet or theory and living with the consequences of its becoming law. So, while everybody is willing to respect Islam as a religion, no westerners want it as a legal and political system. In similar manner, while many may give a nod to MMGW, nobody wants to live with the consequences of the hard left being able to force their “mitigation” plans with the power of the state.

Thanks for explaining the situation, now I can appreciate what the context of this debate is in America. That was what I was missing

But the people who accept it without question are the EXACT same people who accept without question the right to an abortion, SSM, legalized euthanasia, legalized pot, etc.

See, this is the thing, you see – what you stated may be the situation in America. But elsewhere, AGW is usually treated on par with gravitation, or chemistry, or any other established scientific theory. So while there may be a strong secular/liberal correlation with belief in AGW in America, it doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere, which is why you’ll note the people here who live in, say, Europe, are drawing a blank as to why it’s such a hotly debated political issue in the States – and Ridgerunner seems to have clarified much of that.

 

[ishii]

Once again, you are not infallible, so this is purely your opinion and nothing else. You are entitled to your opinion, but it does not make it correct just because you possess it, anymore than those who holdthe opinion that social security does not violate subsidiarity. The Church in her wisdom allows us to make our own choices at the ballot box and we can make our choices either based on long run consequences or short run consequences. It also allows us to look at probable outcomes ahead of time and allows us to make the best decision given the constraints we have.

This is my opinion ?? Thanks for letting me know - here I thought everything I say is revealed truth.

The Church indeed does not tell us who to vote for. It does give us guidelines, and God has given us a brain and reasoning skills to figure out which is the right course to take. Would you recommend that we don’t discuss these issues, abolish the CAF and only consult our confessor on any question related to how to live our lives as Catholics living in a democracy? Btw, you might also ask you confessor what he thinks about SS being an entitlement and if its charitable to call those receiving SS benefits “lazy”

In some battles, even the US is not going to be of much help.

I think most would regard the US as vastly better than Switzerland as an ally. Unless you think ISIS can be defeated by swiss army knives.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thanks for explaining the situation, now I can appreciate what the context of this debate is in America. That was what I was missing

See, this is the thing, you see – what you stated may be the situation in America. But elsewhere, AGW is usually treated on par with gravitation, or chemistry, or any other established scientific theory. So while there may be a strong secular/liberal correlation with belief in AGW in America, it doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere, which is you’ll note the people here who live in, say, Europe, are drawing a blank as to why it’s such a hotly debated political issue in the States – and Ridgerunner seems to have clarified much of that.

It might be interesting to know in what parts of the world people do and do not argue about it or simply reject it out of hand.

It seems China doesn’t believe in it. Seemingly India doesn’t either. Russians are worried about a new ice age, so it doesn’t seem they do.

In some places, they might believe in it but are not willing to do anything to “mitigate” it. Germany seems to be on that list because, after pursuing windmills and such, they are increasing their use of the dirties coal on earth for power to keep their industry going. As I read somewhere, there is a saying in Germany that “…you can make windmills with steel, but you can’t make steel with windmills.”

I recall reading, too, that the only nations in Europe that actually lived up to the Kyoto Accords were Britain and Norway, and only then because North Sea gas came in about that time, which allowed those countries to meet the standards. Nobody else did.

And hasn’t Spain recently abandoned its effort to get most of its energy from solar?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not greatly surprised to see this. And where I live, it would be the exact opposite on all issues.

I am not, however, persuaded that big corporate America believes in MMGW. It’s just expedient to say it because one might get tax credits or government grants for “doing something green”, or simply getting better access to power. I remember how Obama got the lion’s share of big company corporate support in the last election, but I very much doubt those people really believed in Obama’s professed desire to “fundamentally change America” in a left wing way.

Agreed, depends on what part of corporate America. Apple and Amazon (etc.) believe in it; the energy sector undoubtedly does not - nor other interests connected to energy or international markets. I do worry about how we can provide energy for the world’s inhabitants; also the economic damage we will incur (be it a good cause or not) with fossil fuel reduction. That always seems to hit the poor the hardest. Look at the water thing in California. What is sad is that I think the Pope has a point; I need to read the encyclical and kept separate in my mind what he is saying and what everybody else is saying. I remember hearing that when we had horses instead of cars, there was this horrible problem with pollution from horse dung (gases I think?). Everybody embraced technology as a progressive step forward. Likewise, I don’t see the world running on wind turbines - we would wipe out the bird population in a year. Providing safe energy is a horrible problem. People get so wrapped in emotionalism on this issue - they forget about the ugly needs of the world - that we have to function.

 

[ucfengr]

It doesn’t matter if the climate predictions are accurate or not. Those activities which arguably are linked to climate change (eg burning carbon) are DEFINITELY linked to environmental degradation (from mining, acid rain, smog, whatever). Its something we should be moving away from regardless.

Well, yeah, it kind of does. What do you propose to replace fossil fuels with that doesn’t involve significant environmental degradation? Rare earth metals don’t grow on trees, they have to be mined. If we’re going to have to accept some level of environmental degradation to provide power, we may as well accept the one that has the virtue of being relatively cheap and reliable, which is fossil fuels.

But I agree- there are many reasons to pursue cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy without citing AGW as a justification.

Producing energy involves some dirt. There’s no real way to get around it. You may be able to get cheaper, but it’s not going to be cleaner or renewable, unless you’re willing to give up reliability.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is my opinion ?? Thanks for letting me know - here I thought everything I say is revealed truth.

The Church indeed does not tell us who to vote for. It does give us guidelines, and God has given us a brain and reasoning skills to figure out which is the right course to take. Would you recommend that we don’t discuss these issues, abolish the CAF and only consult our confessor on any question related to how to live our lives as Catholics living in a democracy? Btw, you might also ask you confessor what he thinks about SS being an entitlement and if its charitable to call those receiving SS benefits “lazy”

There is nothing wrong with discussing issues, but if I am going to make a moral decision, the advice of a confessor trained in moral theology is going to have a lot more expertise than anonymous posters on some internet forum.

I think most would regard the US as vastly better than Switzerland as an ally. Unless you think ISIS can be defeated by swiss army knives.

Ishii

The US has not been very helpful so far. Also, you cannot consider Romney the political equilvilent of the US military. Maybe more like the French military in WW2. So given that in some states Romney had zero chance of winning, what is it better to do. Vote for a sure loser, or vote for someone who might get some traction in the long run.

 

[Micosil]

It might be interesting to know in what parts of the world people do and do not argue about it or simply reject it out of hand.

It seems China doesn’t believe in it. Seemingly India doesn’t either. Russians are worried about a new ice age, so it doesn’t seem they do.

In some places, they might believe in it but are not willing to do anything to “mitigate” it. Germany seems to be on that list because, after pursuing windmills and such, they are increasing their use of the dirties coal on earth for power to keep their industry going. As I read somewhere, there is a saying in Germany that “…you can make windmills with steel, but you can’t make steel with windmills.”

I recall reading, too, that the only nations in Europe that actually lived up to the Kyoto Accords were Britain and Norway, and only then because North Sea gas came in about that time, which allowed those countries to meet the standards. Nobody else did.

And hasn’t Spain recently abandoned its effort to get most of its energy from solar?

Well, what does “believing” in it mean, here? Openly trying to be “green”, or at least not challenging the science in a political platform?

Spain has abandonded that to an extent – yet we are pretty big when it comes to wind farms; we’re the world’s fourth biggest producer of wind power:

Spain is the world’s fourth biggest producer of wind power. In 2014, the year-end installed capacity was 23 GW and the annual production was 51,439 GWh, a share of total electricity consumption of 21.1%.[1]

In 2009, for the first time in the annual calculation, wind overtook coal that produced 33,844 GWh. In 2010, 43,692 GWh of wind electricity was produced in Spain, with an end of year installed capacity of over 20 GW, representing 20% of capacity, and 16% of production.[2] Wind was the third biggest energy source in the country, exceeded by thermal gas combined cycle at 68,828 GWh and nuclear, that reached 61,944 GWh. In 2010, wind energy covered 16% of the demand, compared to 11.5% in 2008 and 13.8% in 2009.

In 2009, the largest producer of wind power in Spain was Iberdrola, with 25.5% of capacity, followed by Acciona with 20.9% and NEO Energia (EDP Renewables) with 8.3%.[3] On windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain; in November 2009, a wind storm caused wind farms to produce a peak of 53% of total electricity demand (11.546 GW).[4][5] Power peaks of 14.960 GW were reached in November 2010,[6] and in November 2011 a new capacity peak of 59% of power demand being generated by wind power was reached.[7] On 6 February 2013, wind power achieved again a new record in electricity production, reaching an instantaneous peak of 17,056 MW and an hourly production of 16,918 MWh.[8]

 

[utah_rose]

Well, yeah, it kind of does. What do you propose to replace fossil fuels with that doesn’t involve significant environmental degradation? Rare earth metals don’t grow on trees, they have to be mined. If we’re going to have to accept some level of environmental degradation to provide power, we may as well accept the one that has the virtue of being relatively cheap and reliable, which is fossil fuels.

Producing energy involves some dirt. There’s no real way to get around it. You may be able to get cheaper, but it’s not going to be cleaner or renewable, unless you’re willing to give up reliability.

 

[tomarin]

I think most would regard the US as vastly better than Switzerland as an ally. Unless you think ISIS can be defeated by swiss army knives.

Hey they’ve also got those cool halberds - or is that the Swiss guards?

 

[InigoMontoya]

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a practicing Catholic, on Sunday defended his criticism ‎of Pope Francis for weighing in on global warming, saying “there are more pressing problems on Earth” for the pontiff to be tackling.

The former Pennsylvania senator on “Fox News Sunday” also argued that it’s more appropriate for him and other lawmakers than the pope to speak publicly on the issue because they make public policy decisions that affect American workers.

Those decisions, he said, include ones on ozone regulations, efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and energy production and creating job opportunities.
.**
I can’t believe Santorum has decided to take this position.**

Returning to the original post and topic. It might help you to reconcile Santorum taking that position, when you remember that he also held another position. Being an honored recipient earning a position on the Most Corrupt Congressman List Multiple Years in a Row. He is right though, that there certainly are more pressing problems on Earth. Unfortunately for him, one could argue that corruption of government, might just be one of those more pressing problems.

I find myself perplexed a bit, as to quite an extent I’m a fan of Rick Santorum as a person… but not so appreciative of him as a politician. Shrugs

 

[utah_rose]

utah_rose:
And Bishop Wenski is more concerned about Catholic politicians who are disagreeing about climate change then so called Catholic politicians in the White House such as Biden who may run and has pro abortion views not to mention same sex marriage views? And Hilary Clinton who is trying to gather Hispanics, young people and African Americans to vote for her? As far as I know, we are allowed to disagree on things the Pope says that isn’t based on faith and morals. Not that the environment isn’t important, but somehow it trails behind threats of traditional marriage which may emerge from SCOTUS, the so called war against women that Hilary is proposing, late term abortions among these, and anti religious laws that keep cropping up. Is he going to wait until the last minute to urge Catholics to vote pro life? Or instead will he be more concerned that more EPA regulations are pushed through via the Democratic Party.

 

[Thorolfr]

I think it will thin out the Church, and I think that is a good thing. We need to get rid of people in the Church who don’t understand what the Church teaches.

Then you must be happy about this news from last year

NEW YORK (RNS) The Archdiocese of New York, with the second-largest Catholic population in the country and an unparalleled place in U.S. church history, is shrinking: Cardinal Timothy Dolan on Sunday (Nov. 2) announced that nearly a third of the archdiocese’s 368 parishes would be merging, and some would close.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/catholic-church-new-york-closing_n_6097300.html

 

[InigoMontoya]

Then you must be happy about this news from last year

huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/catholic-church-new-york-closing_n_6097300.html

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then you must be happy about this news from last year

huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/catholic-church-new-york-closing_n_6097300.html

We have way too many parishes for the number of active Catholics in the US. There are a lot of dioceses that need to thin out their parishes. To do anything else would be poor stewardship.