Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4elise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No , the truth is mankind can’t do anything about it. The idea of global warming is based on CO2 in the atmosphere put there by man. Well I’m here to inform you the percentage of out atmosphere that is CO2 is only a fraction of a percent. Thats enough to affect anything climate wise.
Sigh this really isn;t a good argument… windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html a page I found on the greenhouse effect. All the greenhouse gases on the earth make up only a fraction of the total earth;s atmosphere. Yet without them this planet would not be habitable.
 
The bishops are wrong to get into this politcal mess. Climate change or global warming, whatever your choice of descritpion, is NOT a moral or spiritual issue and has no direct affect on the Church. It is a scientifc issue of much dispute. the bishops have more important matters directly related to thier charge they ougt to be concentrating on.
While I somewhat agree with you, I can understand why they speak out on it. Regardless of where one falls on the issue, the one thing no one can deny is that it is something that many, many people are talking about and asking questions about. The bishop’s committee in question likely feels it is its responsibility to respond to an issue that so many people are interested in.
 
What if the truth is that climate change is real, and there are things we are doing that are making it worse? Would you want that truth to come out too?
irrelevent. bible indicates that we’re gonna experience a temendous level of suck before Chirst’s return, and there’s nothing we can do about it. so whether we actually can affect the weather or not is irrelevent.
now I’m not advocating just sitting idly by and passively wait for the end. but I dont see chasing after pointless things as productive or useful. let focus on those things we can do to make the wait better for those immediately around us. the temps go up, the temps go down, certianly acting on powers much greater than mankind.
 
This is all just maddening!!!

I just googled ( scientists who reject man made global warming ) and visited the site " The Comprehensive Link List Disproving Man Made Global Warming ". The last of about 40 links, contains a list of 31,478 scientists, 9,029 of which have PHDs, all of them signed this petition rejecting the man made global warming theory.

One may find other sites that counters all of these other links ( or not ) but you can not ignore 31,478 signatures of dissenting scientists.

Clearly, there is no consensus and this petition is tangible proof, provided the list isn’t a scam.

Just how in the world is a lay person supposed to know the morally correct course of action to support?

One thing that has me EXTREMELY suspect is the need to RUSH everything through.
We had to RUSH billions of dollars for bailouts, we needed to RUSH decisions to support and fund abortions around the world and now we need to RUSH through legislation to TAX
carbon emissions. Am I to believe that if we don’t take action in the next few months, we are doomed?

How about we allow the science community to go before Congress, each opposing side, and in front of the cameras, tell America their side of the story and allow truly informed, public opinion to weigh in.

At this point in time I do not trust ANY politician and I don’t want emergency lawmaking when it is not required. 911 called for emergency action, scientific theory that is far from being a consensus does not. Lets take some time and get this right, let all the information come forward, real transparency.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always

JT
The problem with live debates like that is it is really hard to trully have a reasonable debate in a setting like that. In a setting like that there more then likely wonlt be the time or means to refute every false hood every misconception and what not. So an uninformed audience could be misinformed very easily. No the place to debate is in the peer reviewed scientific literature. And so far the those who think that humans are influencing our current climate are definately winning that debate!

And no one is stopping the public from getting trully informed. The literature is there for everyone to read. You just have to be willing to get informed.

As for that petition.

I would recommend watching this. youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel

skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12 another good link

And here is one that deals with the concensus in general but also talks about that petition. cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/
 
The problem with live debates like that is it is really hard to trully have a reasonable debate in a setting like that. In a setting like that there more then likely wonlt be the time or means to refute every false hood every misconception and what not. So an uninformed audience could be misinformed very easily. No the place to debate is in the peer reviewed scientific literature. And so far the those who think that humans are influencing our current climate are definately winning that debate!

And no one is stopping the public from getting trully informed. The literature is there for everyone to read. You just have to be willing to get informed.

As for that petition.

I would recommend watching this. youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel

skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12 another good link

And here is one that deals with the concensus in general but also talks about that petition. cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/
👍:clapping:
 
And why I really look toward the leadership I see coming from the Church in the form of the Acton Institute 😉
Meaning no disrespect, to clarify again the Acton Institute is *****in their words ***** “an ecumenical think-tank dedicated to the study of free-market economics informed by religious faith and moral absolutes”

This is not to imply that you or anyone else would be wrong to look to them for leadership, however for me I will look to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is in their words:

*The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose. *
 
The problem with live debates like that is it is really hard to trully have a reasonable debate in a setting like that. In a setting like that there more then likely wonlt be the time or means to refute every false hood every misconception and what not. So an uninformed audience could be misinformed very easily. No the place to debate is in the peer reviewed scientific literature. And so far the those who think that humans are influencing our current climate are definately winning that debate!

And no one is stopping the public from getting trully informed. The literature is there for everyone to read. You just have to be willing to get informed.

As for that petition.

I would recommend watching this. youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel

skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12 another good link

And here is one that deals with the concensus in general but also talks about that petition. cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/
I agree with a lot of what you have said about true debate and peer reviewed literature but that last link is bizarre. The authors premise seems to be that scientists with PhDs in fields such as chemistry, biology or physics cannot be trusted to read the literature and form an opinion on global warming because they don’t hold advanced degrees in the earth sciences.

So, which is it? 1) The information is out there and we should all become informed and make intelligent decisions. OR 2) unless you have a degree in Earth Science, you are too ignorant to form an intelligent decision.
 
irrelevent. bible indicates that we’re gonna experience a temendous level of suck before Chirst’s return, and there’s nothing we can do about it. so whether we actually can affect the weather or not is irrelevent.
now I’m not advocating just sitting idly by and passively wait for the end. but I dont see chasing after pointless things as productive or useful. let focus on those things we can do to make the wait better for those immediately around us. the temps go up, the temps go down, certianly acting on powers much greater than mankind.
I read somewhere that 95% of people throughout history believed that they were living in end times… this may be the case today, and it may be the case that this is indeed the close of days. (something we don’t know, right?)

I however don’t want to stand before the Lord and say, I decided to sit on my hands and wait for you - as you say we can’t be idle - you may think it is pointless, but many don’t agree with that assessment - and the powers are much greater than mankind - but mankind has responsibilities… and this is the point.
 
I agree with a lot of what you have said about true debate and peer reviewed literature but that last link is bizarre. The authors premise seems to be that scientists with PhDs in fields such as chemistry, biology or physics cannot be trusted to read the literature and form an opinion on global warming because they don’t hold advanced degrees in the earth sciences.

So, which is it? 1) The information is out there and we should all become informed and make intelligent decisions. OR 2) unless you have a degree in Earth Science, you are too ignorant to form an intelligent decision.
I donlt think it is trying to say that they can;t form an informed opinion just that that isn;t their field of expertise. I mean I could read all sorts of medical journals and info and what not on heart disease. But who would you trust more a doctor who has gone to medical school for years and specilized in the cardiovasculary system or me?

So you shouldn;t outright dismiss the opinions of those not in the earth science field when it comes to climate change but they probably aren;t the best direct source of information either.
 
usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-150.shtml

I hope this is helpful 🙂
At the risk of being simple - (actually I thought this was a good thing Matthew 18:2-4), the OP is about what the leadership of the Church is pointing to - I don’t believe anywhere anyone there or on this thread suggested that they (or we for that matter) did or should advocate for the legislation that was passed in the House yesterday

This is what the action alert said we were being asked to do:

How You Can Respond

Urge your Representative to support a clear priority for the poor and vulnerable in climate change legislation and adequate funding for international and domestic needs:

• International Provisions: At least 7% of the value of the carbon credits, approximately $7 billion, be dedicated to international adaptation to help people living in poverty in the most vulnerable developing countries adapt to climate change

• Domestic Provisions: Ensure that funding provided to domestic consumers makes the needs of low-income people a clear priority by including a progressive formula and a comprehensive system so that those most in need are protected from and not harmed by any potential rise in energy prices
Here is the trouble with how the USCCB committee is handling this. Just what do the above statements mean? What would constitute, legislatively, in a 1200 page bill, “a clear priority for the poor and vulnerable?” Exemption from new taxes? Income redistribution? Tax credits for heating and cooling bills? The USCCB doesn’t say. It says to protect them from “any potential rise in energy prices.” (The bill will of course, guarantee a rise in energy prices, as well as all prices of other products across the board.)

And what is meant by requesting $7 billion to be used for “international adaptation to help people living in poverty?” Who gets the money? Does it go to poor families? Not likely. Would it go to corrupt governments to use as they see fit? Would it have any impact at all on climate change or on the poor?

The USCCB committee also complained that that the bill needed to provide more funding for international use.

The paper seems to take for granted that carbon credits are a good thing, even though they are a very bad thing for the economy. It also takes for granted that the U.S. Congress has an obligation to increase U.S. taxation and fees in order to fund overseas projects which may or may not have any effect on the poor or on climate change. It takes for granted that the U.S. must agree to weaken its economy by taking actions that other nations will not be required to take. How all of this is going to help people living in poverty is not explained.
 
I donlt think it is trying to say that they can;t form an informed opinion just that that isn;t their field of expertise. I mean I could read all sorts of medical journals and info and what not on heart disease. But who would you trust more a doctor who has gone to medical school for years and specilized in the cardiovasculary system or me?

So you shouldn;t outright dismiss the opinions of those not in the earth science field when it comes to climate change but they probably aren;t the best direct source of information either.
Two points:
  1. When it comes to the effects of climate change on the ecosystem, biology and chemistry academics are probably more qualified than earth science acedemics.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the earth scientist can tell you about the change in average temperature. It’s going to be biologists and agricultural scientists who will have the point position on what that means for the health of plants (especially food sources), animals and humans.
  1. Even if you want to lessen the impact of the opinion of the non-earth science PhDs, the link you posted still claimed that 12% of the PhDs who signed the statement did come out of Earth Science discipline. That’s over 1000 Earth Scientists who could be considered in your category of “the best direct sources information.”.
 
And this is why I really appreciate that the Church has given some direction -
For me I believe that I can take personal action - and follow the lead of the groups that are part of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change catholicsandclimatechange.org/ from the original post …

And why I keep saying this is a gift to us, leadership that many leaders in our Church have added their support to.

I want Catholics to have a voice in this important discussion - not burying our heads in the sand.
It is good to look to these organizations for information but it is also important for Catholics to keep in mind that the ***only official Church position ***is that which is contained in the USCCB document from 2001 “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good.” Unless someone receives more current direction from thier own Bishop, these other statements and the Coalition are just part of the diversity of opinons that currently exists.
 
It is good to look to these organizations for information but it is also important for Catholics to keep in mind that the ***only official Church position ***is that which is contained in the USCCB document from 2001 “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good.” Unless someone receives more current direction from thier own Bishop, these other statements and the Coalition are just part of the diversity of opinons that currently exists.
For anyone interested, that document is available here: usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml

I’m still not sure I’d call it the “official Church position”, but it was voted on and approved by the entire body of U.S. Bishops, which is more than can be said for the letter in the OP.
 
If climate change is not man-made and cannot be reversed or changed, then the current government efforts at changing economic and societal activity would be futile and would punish the poor.

In any case, in support of real science, a friend sent me this, which I have edited to remove the “scatological blunt language”. The full post with the scatological language and the actual name of the poster is available on www.climatechangedebate.org

By the way, at www.climatechangedebate.org , you must sign in to read and you must use your real name to post.

A friend sent me the following, from:

education.com/magazine/article/Global_Warming_Savvy/

Gordon and David list a bunch of ways kids can stop global warming in their
book, The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming. Here’s a list of Gordon’s
top 6 things kids can do to change their ever-warming world:

a… Save energy by encouraging people to replace regular light bulbs with
compact fluorescent bulbs.
b… Carpool.
c… Unplug chargers.
d… Raise money by selling lemonade, having a car wash, or whatever they
like to do, and donate it to a climate change organization that gets the
message out.
e… Email their mayor, Congressional representative, or Senator and tell
them to pass laws reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
f… Go paperless as much as possible (wrap gifts in cloth, email instead
of regular mail, use both sides of the paper for homework, put recycled
paper in the printer, etc…)

The best Comments tell them in some detail why they are [full of baloney]. The subject
is so huge, and there are so many points in the article calling for
refutation, that it is an impossible task in the space allowed for a
comment. But since this is aimed at educators I felt that some contribution
was called for. My comment to them, not shown yet, was:

Bob Webster has given you a lot of the real science. Additional information
is that the world has been cooling for at least 8 years and stopped warming
a decade ago. We may well be headed for several decades of cooling weather,
not warming, and that would be MUCH worse for nearly all of us. Think
starvation.

The IPCC and other alarmist sources, are basing their scare
predictions…sorry, “scenarios”…on ground-station temperature data
that have been shown independently (see www.surfacestations.org) to be
untrustworthy, with effects of urbanization and changes around weather
stations (pavement, BBQs, air conditioning outlets, etc.) all giving false
“higher” temperatures then have been reported as representative. The
temperature data can’t be trusted!!

The major IPCC reports were not written by scientists. Only 65 persons (!!)
wrote the reports, and nearly all of them were political appointees with an
agenda, not objective scientists. Any information contrary to AGW was
censored out. The report for policymakers was written BEFORE the scientific
report, and the latter was written to agree with the document for
policymakers! Backwards “science”!! (Google “ipcc errors” for a look at the
actualities of the whole IPCC process.) The IPCC reports are worthless for
guidance in setting climate policy. Unfortunately, the relationship to the
UN gives it a halo that it does not deserve.

An Inconvenient Truth is full of scientific errors (a.k.a. “deceptions”)
from start to finish. It should never be shown to children (or anybody, for
that matter), for it wil give them a completely wrong picture of reality.
Carbon dioxide has next to nothing to do with climate, and calls to reduce
CO2 emissions are without foundation. Climate changes naturally, up and
down. Always has and probably will. Man’s emissions have nothing to do with
it.

There is nothing wrong with promoting practical ways to consume less fossil
fuel. But to tie it in to a mythical anthropogenic (man-made) global warming
is to promulgate pure deception and propaganda for ulterior motives.

I have two degrees in chemical engineering and have a fair knowledge of
science. I have spent between 2500 and 3000 hours researching climate. It
takes time to learn the true story of climate (it is EXTREMELY complicated),
and the piffle that is being passed onto the world public is worthless as a
means of educating them. It is most unfortunate that this organization,
while meaning well, is doing a grave disservice to anyone who reads this
blog.

Anyone who wishes to learn some facts about climate is welcome to contact me
at … and I will be pleased to provide lots of good
references.

(Start with wattsupwiththat.com/ )

 
Aren’t we here to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Isn’t that about reconciliation with God, peace with God, and living in eternal union with God? Isn’t our primary responsibility to be useful to Christ for the eternal salvation of souls?

We are responsible to be good stewards. We are responsible to love our neighbor as ourselves. And while we are told to “occupy till I come,” if we think we’re going to “save the planet,” guess what…ain’t gonna happen.

This world is not our true home. There will be a “new heaven and a new earth.” Sometimes, I think so much of this stuff is just a distraction from our true mission…

But hey, I’m probably wrong as usual.

God have mercy on us all.

Melvin
 
Here is the trouble with how the USCCB committee is handling this. …
I agree with your comments but I think they miss the heart of the problem: the fact that the USCCB committee has anything to say on the subject. I really struggle to understand why the bishops find it so difficult to separate moral issues - about which they are obligated to speak - from prudential/political ones where there opinions are no more relevant than anything found in the Letters-to-the-Editor section of any newspaper.

Does anyone really believe that the scientific debate about the cause of global warming has a moral component? - which would be akin to the USCCB stating that it has grave concerns that gravity may be adversely affecting the weak.

Aside from the unresolved scientific questions are the unresolved practical ones: wanting to solve a problem doesn’t give anyone a special insight about how to actually accomplish it. If the bishops think more money should be allocated for international use and is it a sin for me to think less should be allocated? If it is not, then why are the bishops opining on it in the first place - and why should I care?

Actually, this points out the great weakness of the USCCB: its committees are staffed by people advocating political agendas in the guise of moral guidance. The bishops are no more justified in pushing their opinions on global warming than Nancy Pelosi was in explaining the morality of abortion. Talk about fish out of water …

Ender
 
What if the truth is that climate change is real, and there are things we are doing that are making it worse? Would you want that truth to come out too?
I said I want the truth to come out, which means all sides need to be hear and not prohibited from speaking. Those that now have changed their minds on climate change (global warming) are not allowed at the table. The silence is deafening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top