- Status
S
stpiosson
Guest
There is no absolute proof for what is commonly understood as the climate change thesis, that is, that human activity is causing the climate to change. The climate has always been subject to change. That is nature. We have had periods of heating and periods of cooling. We have had ice ages and mass extinctions. And this long before industrialisation.
If anything is causing havoc with the climate, I believe it is sin as nature rebels owing to mankinds sins. The Vatican should really keep out of areas outside of its competence which is faith and morals. By saying that climate change is a pro-life issue the Vatican risks stretching the point which would mean that literally everything is within the bounds of its competence. The Vatican should concentrate on passing on and defending the Apostolic faith and forget all these novelties and fads.
I find it extraordinary that at a time of such confusion, lapsation, grave attacks on God’s law, secularism, materialism and sinfulness that the Vatican has time to devote to unproven theories like climate change.
Would it be too much to suggest that the Vatican get on and do what it is there for, to hand on and defend the faith and guide souls to heaven?
If anything is causing havoc with the climate, I believe it is sin as nature rebels owing to mankinds sins. The Vatican should really keep out of areas outside of its competence which is faith and morals. By saying that climate change is a pro-life issue the Vatican risks stretching the point which would mean that literally everything is within the bounds of its competence. The Vatican should concentrate on passing on and defending the Apostolic faith and forget all these novelties and fads.
I find it extraordinary that at a time of such confusion, lapsation, grave attacks on God’s law, secularism, materialism and sinfulness that the Vatican has time to devote to unproven theories like climate change.
Would it be too much to suggest that the Vatican get on and do what it is there for, to hand on and defend the faith and guide souls to heaven?
I
IWantGod
Guest
…and then a 100 years later the planet becomes uninhabitable to humans. Aliens then discover the planet earth and find this quote by stpiosson. The alien shakes his head and proclaims “they never had a chance”.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
The headline is misleading. The article does not quote Pope Francis at all, but rather Cardinal Peter Turkson, though the two surely are in close agreement.
Cardinal Turkson may be exaggerating to say “if we continue on this path, it won’t be possible anymore to have human life on this planet.” What we should be concerned about is not total destruction, but that climate change will endanger peace and prosperity. If people are fighting wars over water and farmland, or if they are starving, it becomes immensely more difficult to love one another and live in holiness.
Cardinal Turkson may be exaggerating to say “if we continue on this path, it won’t be possible anymore to have human life on this planet.” What we should be concerned about is not total destruction, but that climate change will endanger peace and prosperity. If people are fighting wars over water and farmland, or if they are starving, it becomes immensely more difficult to love one another and live in holiness.
Last edited:
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
It’s funny, the main cause for climate change is too many people with needs, yet it is being touted as going hand in hand with pro-life. Unless we can severly curtail pollution and energy consumption, we will continue to go south on this one…
Unfortunatly, when we finally have proof that man is the key to CC, it will be too late.
Unfortunatly, when we finally have proof that man is the key to CC, it will be too late.
Last edited:
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually it is too many people with greeds
.If we just reduce our greed, profligacy, and inefficiency, we could probably solve the problem. The earth systems takes up about half the CO2 humans emit. We just need to do things with more awareness and love for life.
Of course, more people becoming priests and nuns won’t hurt either.
Mark121359
Well-known member
There are questions whether they’re even getting those right!
Last edited:
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
The Church has a duty to be stewards of the Earth, and so do we.
Man-Made Climate Change is threatening to destroy the entire world.
This is a proven scientific fact, but people stubbornly refuse to accept it, probably because of how our bodies work:
We are called as Catholics to protect the Earth, and we are a part of it’s greatest threat.
We need to step up, and take action.
Man-Made Climate Change is threatening to destroy the entire world.
This is a proven scientific fact, but people stubbornly refuse to accept it, probably because of how our bodies work:
We are called as Catholics to protect the Earth, and we are a part of it’s greatest threat.
We need to step up, and take action.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I agree, but I also say that killing and harming people and others of God’s creation is pretty much within the purview of “faith and morals,” at least since the 10 Commandments. Maybe what we need to do is to read the Bible rather than reading what the falsehoods put out by the well-oiled CC denialist industy.
Also re competence, I would say the Vatican has a lot more of that on the subject of CC than we do, since it has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences AND Pope Francis has education in science and is quite able to read and understand studies about CC, and not be fooled by the denialist industry’s deceit.
G
graciew
Guest
Have you read the Compendium?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
K
kinja
Guest
Friend there is unfortunately no evidence to support this belief that man made CO2 has been significantly contributing to climate change. A few things I will share from my study of environmental physics and my avid reading on all different fields of study which colelctively make up what we know as climate change science:
- The Earth is largely thought of as an organism in modern science in that it is homeostatic. In other words it’s temperature is controlled by the movement of water over it’s surface. Therefore to suggest that increased CO2 will automatically increase its temperature globally is to treat the Earth as a closed system which it is not.
- CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food and studies have shown that the more of it there is in the atmosphere the better plants grow and yield. This means more food for humanity. Farmers have been introducing excess CO2 into their greenhouses for decades with the effect of increasing crop yield. It is neither poisonous to human or animals either as we inhale it every day, all the time with no ill effects whatsoever.
- The majority of CO2 is release by sea algae and terrestrial plants NOT by mankind. Out of the 7% of the CO2 (the other 93% of the air is H2O and other gases) that the atmosphere contains human beings only contribute to 0.024%.
- The feedback equation used by most climate models exaggerates the amount of warming due to man made CO2 by 100%. The climate models have been failing successively every year in predicting the amount of warming yet they are still being touted as “evidence” of climate change (results of computer modelling is not empirical evidence as actual measurement only can qualify as empirical evidence).
- Historically there is no consistent correlation between CO2 levels and golbal temperature as can be seen in many of the source material when looking at climate over thousands of millenia.
- Increased global temperature during a solar minimum (as is the case now) seems to be due to cosmic radiation being allowed into the atmosphere (high solar activity shields the Earth from cosmic radiation normally) and heating it up.
- The short term correlations of global temperature and CO2 levels suggest further that increased temperatures over the seas precipitates a release of CO2 by sea algae. So that it is the increased temperatures that are causing excess CO2 and not CO2 causing the increased temperatures. In general and as compared to sea algae our contribution of CO2 is also very minute and insignificant.
- The majority contributor to warming is H2O not CO2. H2O accounts for 78% of warming. CO2, Methane and other gases collectively make up the remaining 22% of warming. So if you want to attempt to stop the warming of the Earth get rid of water not CO2.
- Even if all countries stopped burning fossil fuels over night this would only account for “possibly” a 1 degree Celcius decrease in global temperature over the next half a century. This is of course ignoring natural forcings (natural causes of warming) such as solar activity, El Nino, La Nina, Jet streams and a host of other “actually significant” climate variables.
- Even without ClimateGate and a host of other scandals involving the skewing of and tampering with climate data by scientists dependent on political funding, the data is quite scant and weak which can prove that human activity has any significant impact on global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever politicians, scientists or the businessmen who may be paying them both choose to call it tomorrow.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
what utter nonsense, how can any believer in Jesus believe this stuff. will God let man destroy this world before Jesus returns? is the bible false? does it not say Jesus will return. does returning to an uninhabited planet count? does it not say evil will exist until He returns; this obviously means people will be here.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
The problem with judgments like this is that the Pope can be right on the law but way off base on the facts. For example, immediate abolition of nuclear weapons is a technical impossibility. Why? Because dismantling nukes doesn’t get rid of them. Only by burning up the cores in nuclear reactors can we be permanently rid of nuclear weapons. For reference, it took 20 years for the United States to burn up the former Soviet Union’s surplus weapons-grade uranium. Even running the entire world’s fleet of nuclear reactors exclusively off of weapons cores would take years to consume them all. That doesn’t mean disarmament is a bad idea, but we need plans that are actually physically possible.
Last edited:
M
mythbuster1
Guest
Yes, but it also says, “Except those days be shortened, no flesh would be saved alive.” Humanity won’t go extinct before His return, but it will come close.
U
upant
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Nice try, but you do realize scientists don’t accept your points, tho they do sound good enough to deceive others. I’ll just pick one, bec I don’t have time for all the other debunked points, some with grains of truth so as to deceive the unwary (perhaps you were so deceived by some nefarious blogsites you visited).
H2O is a GHG, the most prevalent one, however, it is a FEEDBACK due to the increased warming due to the FORCING GHGs, such as CO2 and methane (CH4). It is a feedback because H2O molecules have a residence in the atmosphere of only a few days in general, while CO2 can be up there for 100s, even 1000s of years. A portion can be up there for up to 100,000 years. This is why experts in GHGs say CO2 is the more serious one, even though CH4 molecules are some 25 times more potent than CO2, bec CH4 only has a residence of about 10 years, until is degrades into CO2 etc.
RE H2O being a feedback (and not a forcing), if you think about it, warmer air holds more water vapor…which is why we are getting more and more serious deluges, killing 1000s of people (as in Asia these past few weeks), and more precip during hurricanes and blizzards.
So your grain of truth is important as a knock-on negative impact of global warming – floods, deluges – caused by CO2 and other forcing GHGs.
Last edited:
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I, unlike Cardinal Turkson, don’t actually think ALL human life would die out due to GW over the next 100,000 years or so (which could be the time it lasts if we continue to ignore addressing it).
I just heard on TV that the N. Koreans feel confident that at least some of them would survive all-out nuclear war, as if that were some victory.
So I suppose some humans would survive all-out global warming, maybe even, say, 25% or maybe even 50%, but I don’t consider that a victory, but a shame on our generation for causing so much death and destruction.
But then again maybe Cardinal Turkson is right. I think the Bible does say or imply that end of the world will come about because of our sinfulness, so that sort of fits. Maybe this is the way it will end…or some other way ???
I just heard on TV that the N. Koreans feel confident that at least some of them would survive all-out nuclear war, as if that were some victory.
So I suppose some humans would survive all-out global warming, maybe even, say, 25% or maybe even 50%, but I don’t consider that a victory, but a shame on our generation for causing so much death and destruction.
But then again maybe Cardinal Turkson is right. I think the Bible does say or imply that end of the world will come about because of our sinfulness, so that sort of fits. Maybe this is the way it will end…or some other way ???
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Hi teen Catholic guy. I agree with you. We are to be stewards of the earth.
Even if man made climate change didn’t exist, what is so wrong about conserving resources and developing alternative fuels?
Laudato sii is a good encyclical. Too bad people just see “climate change” and disregard the whole thing.
Even if man made climate change didn’t exist, what is so wrong about conserving resources and developing alternative fuels?
Laudato sii is a good encyclical. Too bad people just see “climate change” and disregard the whole thing.
K
kinja
Guest
That is wonderful. Nothing wrong with that…except that is not what political AGW advocates are proposing. They want to charge people for developing their country and keeping warm. The alternative energy sources are both expensive and inefficient. You cannot run a small city (let alone a large one) on solar or wind power for instance at this time. I agree with exploring alternatives simply as a risk mitigation strategy so we do not have all out eggs in one basket. But I do not support the empoverishment of the poor and working class at the altar of an unproven hypothesis whose proponents have been using Nazi styled intimidation and mockery to silence disagreement consistently.
- Status