Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[zz912]

So tell me again why an encyclical on responsible stewardship of creation, proper respect for the environment and on the need to protect the earth (our common home) for future generations, does not fall under ‘morals’?

Climate change and related environmental concerns, other than say fracking, is not a politicized left-right partisan issue in many other countries as it appears to be in the U.S. Why would the pope not use the scientific consensus on the dangers facing humanity vis-a-vis our abuse of the environment and fossil fuels, to elucidate these moral truths for today’s generation? This is what the church has always done.

If the encyclical talks about taking care of the planet and reducing pollution, that is good stewardship, which is entrusted to man, this is a moral issue. If the encyclical claims that global warming/climate change/climate disruption/etc is a reality, then it is giving mere opinion and speculation.

It’s sad that this isn’t more of an issue in other parts of the world, because it should be. More Catholics should wake up and recognize who they are laying down in bed with. The people promoting this are socialists and others in favor of population “control”.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Because it includes faulty conclusions and is politically inspired.

How do you know that it is politically inspired? Whether it has faulty conclusions is something that reasonable people can debate, but where do you get your special insight on the motivation of the pope?

The Catechism already has spoken on good stewardship of the earth. This is unnecessary and divisive.

On the other hand, Jesus promised that the Church would be divisive, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Vouthon]

Because it includes faulty conclusions and is politically inspired.

The Catechism already has spoken on good stewardship of the earth. This is unnecessary and divisive.

It is political only in America. For most of the rest of the planet, it is a bipartisan issue recognised as an imminent, scientifically evidenced reality that needs dealt with. The pope is a father and pastor to the human race. Why should he have to write an encyclical intended for all humanity in numerous languages with a view to pacifying conservative American politicians?

As the Supreme Pontiff, validly elected to the office, he can write an encyclical on whatever he feels to be a pressing matter worthy of theological and moral reflection. He believes it to be the environment and the impact of climate change on the common good, most especially with reference to the poor. He is perfectly entitled to utilize the latest scientific consensus to buttress his moral arguments about ecology.

 

[zz912]

No need to throw stones at Mr. Bush over this issue. Whether we agree or not with him or Pope Francis, the vast majority of us in some respects are “cafeteria Catholics” as we pick and choose what Church teachings we wish to accept.

God Bless and Peace to all.

Not saying it was you, cause I don’t remember who floated it out there some time ago, but I remember something similar being used as an excuse for a liberal to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician. The reasoning was that b/c a Republican might disagree with some bishops over immigration policy, global warming, minimum wage, etc, then that meant they were a “cafeteria” Catholic. And since it appears that everyone’s a cafeteria Catholic, it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.

Of course it was pointed out that there is a fundamental difference in disagreeing with priest/bishops/popes on matters of prudential judgment or economic policies, and rejecting Church teaching on abortion. Of course it didn’t matter to this person, since any excuse, no matter how flimsy or false, will give them enough cover to reject Church teaching and vote for a pro-abortion politician.

We’ll have to add this excuse to the list (again, not saying this was yours, just that it reminded m of it).

 

[Vouthon]

If the encyclical talks about taking care of the planet and reducing pollution, that is good stewardship, which is entrusted to man, this is a moral issue. If the encyclical claims that global warming/climate change/climate disruption/etc is a reality, then it is giving mere opinion and speculation.

It’s sad that this isn’t more of an issue in other parts of the world, because it should be. More Catholics should wake up and recognize who they are laying down in bed with. The people promoting this are socialists and others in favor of population “control”.

Perhaps that’s precisely why the pope feels that he has to articulate a specifically Catholic understanding of environmentalism and ecology, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I agree with you on neo-Malthusian population control but disagree profoundly on climate change and human contribution to it, which is a settled scientific theory practically speaking. I have no reason to dispute it, nor do most politicians in other parts of the world, hence why it isn’t a politicized issue.

The only people making a fuss about this encyclical are American republicans and their political enemies. The pope and the rest of us are concerned about a pressing global challenge, not the intricacies of a domestic American political wrangle.

Nearly everyone else accepts climate change. The pope is not claiming that climate change is a reality and writing an encyclical to that end. He is working on the sound pretext that it is a scientifically evidenced reality that mandates an urgent response from the human race, just like Pope Leo XIII did vis-a-vis industrialization and exploitation of the working class in the 1890s and Pope John XXIII did concerning the reality of a nuclear arms race in the 1960s.

 

[GEddie]

**
Greenhouses, for example, find optimal plant growth occurs in the 1200-1500 ppm range. That’s why they buy CO2 generators.
**

Well, yeah, that’s why the process in the atmosphere is called a greenhouse effect.

Turning our world into an enormous greenhouse however, is not per se, desirable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[FollowChrist34]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

Can you of scientists out there please explain to me what caused the CO2 rises previously in the earth’s history and how they were controlled?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is political only in America. For most of the rest of the planet, it is a bipartisan issue recognised as an imminent, scientifically evidenced reality that needs dealt with. The pope is a father and pastor to the human race. Why should he have to write an encyclical intended for all humanity in numerous languages with a view to pacifying conservative American politicians?

As the Supreme Pontiff, validly elected to the office, he can write an encyclical on whatever he feels to be a pressing matter worthy of theological and moral reflection. He believes it to be the environment and the impact of climate change on the common good, most especially with reference to the poor. He is perfectly entitled to utilize the latest scientific consensus to buttress his moral arguments about ecology.

I suspect most of the world does NOT see MMGW as an imminent problem that needs to be dealt with. If that were the case, China and India would not be increasing their CO2 emissions massively without so much as a nod to MMGW.

And if I’m permitted to defend Americans just a bit, I will hazard that there is no first or second world country that has as much concern and care for the environment than does America; Canada possibly excepted. But concern and care of the environment does not require belief in MMGW or in making “utility bills skyrocket” as Obama has promised to do in the name of it.

Quite possibly in Europe, most people do. But then, most of them are against their notion of “capitalism” too.

Certainly the Pope is free to write on whatever he thinks sufficiently important to write about. What I think most non-MMGW believers (and possibly even some who do believe in it) are concerned about is this encyclical possibly creating a political situation here in which the administration has additional ammunition to make life harder for Americans in a serious way, and quite possibly for no good reason at all.

It’s more a fear of the totalitarian left than it is anything else.

 

[Micosil]

Because it includes faulty conclusions and is politically inspired.

The Catechism already has spoken on good stewardship of the earth. This is unnecessary and divisive.

:banghead: There is nothing “political” about the reality of man-made global warming outside of the US. The Pope is entitled to his scientific facts, and based on those, can certainly make moral statements and recommendations.

Certainly the Pope is free to write on whatever he thinks sufficiently important to write about. What I think most non-MMGW believers (and possibly even some who do believe in it) are concerned about is this encyclical possibly creating a political situation here in which the administration has additional ammunition to make life harder for Americans in a serious way, and quite possibly for no good reason at all.

It’s more a fear of the totalitarian left than it is anything else.

That is fair enough. Then attack the methods they use to lobby for changes that you think will make life harder for Americans. The Catholic Church already gets a bad rep from naive people who assume it’s a barbaric anti-science organization, and if American Catholics are being encouraged to wave “AGW is bogus!” banners, that will give the anti-Catholics additional ammunition for no good reason at all.

 

[zz912]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

Quote:
The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

Can you of scientists out there please explain to me what caused the CO2 rises previously in the earth’s history and how they were controlled?

Or how about just explaining why the temperature ISN’T 11 degrees warmer??? If CO2 is the cause of this warming they claim is happening, why isn’t the earth warming? Why isn’t it 11 degrees warmer?

(of course there will ALWAYS be some excuse, probably that the oceans are gobbling up the extra heat. It’s par for the course, same with socialism. It fails every time, and yet there’s always an excuse why it didn’t work this time, but NEXT time it will definitely work.)

 

[zz912]

:banghead: There is nothing “political” about the reality of man-made global warming outside of the US. The Pope is entitled to his scientific facts, and based on those, can certainly make moral statements and recommendations.

Except it’s not warming, and you have zero evidence that man is causing in any measureable way, any changes to the temperature of the globe.

 

[Pulvis]

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

Can you of scientists out there please explain to me what caused the CO2 rises previously in the earth’s history and how they were controlled?

Real good chance it was volcanic activity. 1 major eruption can wipe out an entire years worth of CO2 reductions. An Australian Geologist wrote a very interesting paper on this last year. He also was of the same mindset as Dr. Jeff Masters on the fraud of MMGW.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Real good chance it was volcanic activity. 1 major eruption can wipe out an entire years worth of CO2 reductions. An Australian Geologist wrote a very interesting paper on this last year. He also was of the same mindset as Dr. Jeff Masters on the fraud of MMGW.

But does anybody know what caused the rises in the past?

Edit - sorry, I misread your post. You are saying that volcanic activity caused the rise.

 

[Ridgerunner]

:banghead: There is nothing “political” about the reality of man-made global warming outside of the US. The Pope is entitled to his scientific facts, and based on those, can certainly make moral statements and recommendations.

And when there are reputable scientists who disagree with all or part of the MMGW notion, what then?

Something almost nobody ever does is separate the theory from the political objectives of those who promote the theory.

It almost reminds one of Islam and Sharia. Virtually everybody avers that Islam is benign, is a religion of peace, that we all should get along with Muslims, and so on. But absolutely nobody who is not Muslim wants to live under Sharia which, unfortunately, is part and parcel of Islam. So it’s not just a matter of greeting one’s Muslim neighbor at Ramadan, one needs to realize that every Muslim is at least theoretically required to intend that everyone live under Sharia.

So, when MMGW theory is on the march, and people feel themselves inclined to think of it in terms of shutting off the lights when one leaves a room and little more, one needs to be at least concerned that Obama probably meant it when he said he intends “making utility bills skyrocket”. And if so, what do he and his partisans have in mind besides that rather serious measure? Are they content, for example, for all “smokestack industry” jobs to leave the U.S. for China, India or the many other countries that are not going to do anything about their CO2 emissions other than increase them? Their actions seem to speak for them, and the answer to that seems likely to be “yes”.

 

[phil19034]

I wish he could have waited until it came out and read it first.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But does anybody know what caused the rises in the past?

Edit - sorry, I misread your post. You are saying that volcanic activity caused the rise.

Some scientists argue that temperature increases, which happen for other reasons, cause a rise in CO2 levels, at least for awhile. So, there is a “chicken and egg” aspect to this debate.

 

[marymary1975]

I wonder if Jeb Bush realizes that Pope Francis is by Education a Chemist. So when he saysleft it to sscientists… Well the Pope is a scientist!

 

[Micosil]

And when there are reputable scientists who disagree with all or part of the MMGW notion, what then?

There are also people with Ph.D’s in physics who have contrary, non-mainstream, kooky, crackpot and fringe physical ideas. You cannot take the argument of authority that far.

Something almost nobody ever does is separate the theory from the political objectives of those who promote the theory.

.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t live in the States, so I have no qualms in shutting off all lights when I don’t need them, installing fluorescent lightbulbs and getting rid of incandescent ones, and using a fan for ventilation instead of the air-conditioner. And I don’t think doing those things have automatically turned me into a pro-choice, same-sex marriage supporter, as far as I can tell.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Some scientists argue that temperature increases, which happen for other reasons, cause a rise in CO2 levels, at least for awhile. So, there is a “chicken and egg” aspect to this debate.

Ok, thanks, in other words

1. Global warmers say that CO2 increases cause temperature increases.
2. Others say temperature increases cause CO2 increases and/or don’t see (1) as established fact.

Is that right (in a nutshell)?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/17/i-wont-take-the-popes-advice-on-climate-change-says-jeb-bush/

Mr Bush, who is a convert to Catholicism, said: “I hope I’m not like, going to get castigated for saying this in front of my priest back home but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.”

I take great amusement from the modular approach to Catholicism that many American Catholics like Bush adopt. Picking and choosing which papal doctrines to follow and which to dispose of; nice and segmented; each belief separated into little individual boxes. Thus, Bush can easily champion a particular belief (e.g. the sanctity of marriage) whilst pooh-poohing doctrines on social justice, the environment, etc.