Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Calliso]

It only takes ONE point to defeat the hypothesis that global warming/ climate change is man-made.

But, we have tons of points that counter the man-made climate change arguments.

The major vulnerabilities of the man-made global warming / climate change issue are:

1. it’s all based on bogus computer models … not to mention the utterly and totally bogus “hockey stick” graph.
2. 85% of the data used in the models are high by from 1 degree to 5 degrees. Since the model results are only one degree per hundred years, (name removed by moderator)ut data that is off by as much as 5 degrees will bias the model results by several degrees … www.surfacestations.org
3. a large number of scientists [thousands] have stated that the idea of man-made global warming / climate change is a fraud.

There are many more discussion points, but all the arguing in the world won’t invalidate these three issues listed above.

In any event, here is ANOTHER source:

joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

The more I look, the more people I find who are posting the weaknesses of the man-made notion of global warming / climate change.

1. No it is not all based on computer models. skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

As for the hockey stick actually no it hasn;t been debunked skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm and even if the original was wrong there has been several studies with similar results since the original hockey stick. nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 this second link is from the nation academies on temperature reconstructions for the past 2000 years.

1. Ok I have addressed this over and over again. But here is that thing from NOAA again. ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm cce.890m.com/temperature-record/ and of course there is much more then just the surface temperature record for evidence for warming

And this comment lists some problems with that site as well realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/

1. And you know when you look at these petitions what I find is that much if not most of these scientists aren;t even in a field related to climate sometimes they aren;t even scientists at all! Anyway here is another link skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm So while it is true that there are a few legimate climate scientists that donlt think global warming has anything to do with man there are definately in the minority here.

Ahh the the global warming skeptics handbook eh? desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-part-3-climate-models-have-it-right skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html Anyway that is enough links and a quick glance at that guide and website seemed like the same old same old once again.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Oops, how inconvenient … posted today … another convert from warmism:

[this is on www.climatechangedebate.org … but you need to sign in and use your real name]

A public confession from Mike Haseler … [had to cut and spread over more than one post to fit to maximum size.]

He mentions Jesus, by the way …

---

The Global Warming Scam

---

How a former believer in AGW realized his error.

   I

Global Temperatures & CO2
The Failure of the Theory of Manmade Global Warming

February’s Update news: According to revised official Met office1 figures,
January 2008 was still the coldest month globally in 14 years2. At only
0.056°C higher than the nominal reference3 We must look back to February
1994 to find a colder month. Global temperatures peaked in February 1998 at
0.75°C and with February coming in at 0.194°C there is a definite and
accelerating cooling trend of -0.1°C/decade.

By the Met Office’s own statistics it is highly unlikely that the forecasts
could be consistently too high by chance and therefore this is clear proof
of a consistent error in the forecasting model. That is to say, the cooling
temperature clearly contradicts the theory of manmade global warming,
because although CO2 levels continue to rise, global temperatures have
cooled.
Year Temp**
(°C) Met Office Predicted Confidence Temp Higher
2000 0.238 >0.33 >80%
2001 0.400 >0.42 >75%
2002 0.455 >0.47 >50%
2003 0.457 >0.50 >75%
2004 0.432 >0.47 >75%
2005 0.479 >0.48 >75%
2006 0.422 >0.45 >50%
2007 0.402 >0.49 >75%

Met Office predictions consistently high

1 For Official Met Office monthly data click the graph
2 Initially reported as 0.037°C
3 relative to the average temperature for the period 1960-91
4 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

---

Now stand aside, worthy adversary4
There was a time (around the turn of the millennium) that I thought anyone
who didn’t believe in Global warming was a deluded, oil-industry paid
Charlie-ton! And, I had a point, because at that time the evidence was
clearly showing a rise in temperature in the latter half of the 20th century
and there were some people who simply would not admit that temperatures had
risen and that there was reason to be concerned. But then again, there was a
time when we all thought the world was going to end at midnight 31st
December 1999, because what the experts told us was the “an impending
disaster” known as the millennium bug. Strangely, the millennium bug never
happened, and we all seem to have forgotten how close we were to the end of
western civilisation!

Looking back now, it wasn’t just the “deniers” as the global warming brigade
call them who were deluded, it was sensible, scientifically trained people
like me who were wrong. My excuse? In life, even if you are a trained
scientist, you simply cannot check every detail yourself and you have to
judge arguments based on the authority and credibility of people presenting
those arguments. Even someone trained in the most rigorous science (physics)
like me has to rely on others and unfortunately, sometime we misjudge
people.

My “tipping point”?
It happened when I tried to engage a group of these “climate experts” in a
simple discussion. Working in the wind industry, I had met numerous of these
so called experts at conferences and whilst some of what they said seemed a
little over the top, the simple fact that temperatures had risen seemed to
suggest there was a lot of truth in what they were saying. Moreover, I saw
these people as “lovable underdogs” in a way seeing them as those
eco-warriors “fighting the capitalist tyranny of the oil companies”. When
you see the “pro-warming” group as the honest underdog, and the anti-warming
as being in the pay of the oil-lobbyists you tend to listen to those you
think are “honest”. Then through my interest in energy matters, I read that
there wasn’t enough oil and gas to cause global warming and try as I might I
couldn’t find any mention of this by the “pro-warming lobby”, so I wanted to
see how this fitted in with their calculations. It seemed an innocent
question and fairly obvious that if CO2 causes temperature increase, and the
amount of manmade CO2 is limited by the amount of fossil fuel, then there
must be a physical limit to the amount of warming that is possible, and I
simply wanted to know what the worst case scenario was if all the accessible
fossil fuel was burnt.

 

[Al_Masetti]

[Haseler continued]

What I didn’t realise was that this didn’t fit in with the climatologists’
view of the world: it wasn’t part of their calculations, it wasn’t something
they even considered. When they say “if we carry on burning fossil fuels”,
they didn’t consider the possibility that fossil fuels might run out, they
literally meant that there was no limit to available fossil fuels. As
someone firmly convinced of global warming, it was very strange to find
myself being labelled a “denier” for simply stating the obvious: that there
was a practical limit to the amount of fossil fuels and therefore there must
be a limit to the amount of manmade global warming.

To cut a long story short, I finally came to my senses when I realised that
I had met precisely the same people with the same attitudes at school - I
began to realise these climatologists weren’t using the normal rational
arguments you expect of scientists They never answered simple questions like
“where is the proof that CO2 is causing global warming”. They spouted facts
and figures, dodged and dived, citing this authority and that, never really
allowing themselves to be pinned down nor to answer the simple questions
like “what happens when the oil runs out” … imagine my horror when it
turned out these climatologists were same narrow minded, “born again
Christians” who stubbornly refused to believe in evolution, that it took
millions of years to create the Universe, or that Jesus might have been a
human, the same people who frustratingly answered every question by asking
one back.

Heresy
Basically, by daring to question whether global warming might have a
“natural end” when fossil fuel runs out, I was committing a heresy! It turns
out that Global warming is little more than another doomsday religion
clothed in a thin veneer of science, and to even ask whether it may
self-limit, undermines the basic tenet of this religion and so is heretical!
And, as a heretic I had to be converted or ostracised. Slowly I realised,
that far from the “pro global warming group”, being a disorganised but
well-being bunch of people trying against the odds to get their message
across in the face of multi-national organisation hell bent on perverting
the public perception, in fact if anything, the pro-lobby were a highly
organised, ruthlessly efficient well-oiled publicity machine that was
railroading their ideas based on only the flimsiest of evidence. And once I
started asking myself “what exactly is the evidence to link CO2 with recent
warming”, I began finding that virtually nothing I had assumed to be
scientifically “proven” about global warming was anything of the sort. In
fact, the whole theory really boils down to nothing more that the
coincidental change of two (probably) entirely unrelated variables: global
temperature and CO2. The science linking the two was non-existent, no one
had sat down in a lab and proved a link, it was all someone’s opinion about
this, someone’s interpretation of that, and much of the interpretation was
clearly questionable - I had been conned, and what is worse I had been
conning other people by suggesting a link between manmade CO2 and a recent
rise in temperatures when no honest scientist could have stated a causal
link!

The Con Trick
Many people are concerned by global warming, but try to argue about the
“evidence”. The fact is that science is on the side of the sceptic- it is
not up to the sceptic to prove there is no link between CO2 and global
warming. Science requires those asserting a link to prove it. But global
warming isn’t like that. You can’t prove or disprove global warming, because
global warming simply can’t be pinned down. It can’t be disproven, because
it is fundamentally a scam. The scam behind global warming is one of the
simplest cons known to mankind and to show you how it works, I will draw a
parallel with fortune telling:

Environmentalism (a.k.a. Global Warming) Fortune Telling
Find some people who want to believe something. In this case, a public who
are daily been told to consume more and more, who want to believe that
“there’s no such thing as a free lunch” and so there must be a downside to
all this consumption. Everyone wants to believe in love, life, etc.
Look at every measurement of anything at all you can in the natural
environment. Given enough measurements, and the natural variability of all
measurements, sooner or later one of them is going to “look odd” and start
heading “away from normal”. Look deeply into your crystal ball muttering
things about lovers, life, death, until you get a reaction from your client.
Having found a measurement heading “away from normal”, extend the line into
the distant future and whether the outcome is historically seen as “good”
(warm periods) or “bad” (cool periods), predict an “impending disaster”.
Having found a line of interest predict it forward using the usual ambiguous
language of “love is coming into your life”, “I see death”.
Now find a suitable “peg” to link this doom with mankind’s “evil ways” (aka
human consumption). In this case suggest the very small and inconsequential
rise in natural CO2 which seems to be related to human consumption. Ask the
client to tell you how this relates to their life. Get them to tell you the
person they think this relates to.

Having found your an “impending doom” variable and the “guilty conscience”
variable, tentatively suggest the two are related. Suggest your dire
prediction might relate to the person suggested by your client (note it is
the client that makes and confirms the link)

 

[Al_Masetti]

[Haseler continued]

Having suggested a link between human consumption and the “impending
disaster” allow the public’s innate belief in a downside for everything
including consumption turn this “suggestion” into a certainty that “there
must be a link”. Though there is no actual prediction as such, just a
suggestion that “love is in the air, and I see your friend is close” - the
client’s own desire for a link allows them to use their imagination to add
bells and whistles because this is what they want to believe.

Now get government to spend billions on “research” which effectively tries
in ever more complicated ways to replicate the line you originally drew,
giving the external appearance of being “scientific” and ensuring that there
are more and more so-called “scientists” on the pay-roll daily re-enforcing
the idea of this “scientific” prediction without anyone ever fundamentally
questioning the fundamental assumption of a link. Having convinced the
client that they have a prediction, let them tell everyone in their words
about your prediction and let them work to bring it to fruition.

If temperatures rise, take all the credit, if they don’t rise - bamboozle
the public (mention the difficulty of predicting the climate, blame the
politicians for “not having listened to the warnings” carefully hidden in
all the reports. … ) and quickly find another scare “even worse” to
preoccupy them. If your prediction has any truth at all claim this as the
“miracle” of your powers, if it does not, remind them about all the
predictions you have “successfully made” (got right by chance) and if
necessary remind them about the ambiguous language you used and show how
“they did not fully understand the nuances of the prediction and so
misunderstood”.

The reason global warming works as a scam,] is that most people have a gut
feeling that it ought to be true. We want to believe that all this
consumption has got to be bad. Unfortunately, this makes our society
extremely susceptible to accept anything that fits in with this belief.
Whilst it is possible there is a link between CO2 and temperature, the
actual historical evidence suggests that changes in world temperature lead
changes in worldwide CO2 levels, so if anything the relationship is that
changes in temperature lead to changes in worldwide CO2. But mere evidence
like that doesn’t affect [for] those who believe there must be a link.

Bogus Science
The real scam of course, is to call global warming “scientific”. The basis
of science is testable hypothesis. That is to say, you develop a theory
based on the data available which you then test against new data. What makes
Global warming bogus is that the theory has been developed to fit a recent
rise in temperature, and then that theory is being “tested” by seeing
whether it fits that same data. And guess what- it does! At its very
simplest, what this means is that during the decades 1970-2000, temperatures
rose, and someone drew a line through this rising temperature and then they
say “it’s proved” because look the temperature has risen along the line we
predicted! This is the science of quack medicine. This is the science of
spoon-benders of ESP, it is not proper science.

 

[Al_Masetti]

But of course, in science it is not possible to prove anything by the
absence of data. So the “Pro” pseudo-scientific lobby have a great
advantage, for having found two variables that might appear to be linked,
the available data inherently coincides with their interpretation and so
they are able to spread the “gospel” of causality, even though this is
entirely untested. But those who are more rigorous and therefore sceptical,
cannot disprove an apparent link until more data comes along … and even
when contrary data becomes available, this will only cause a temporary halt
to the bogus science, because pseudo-scientists by their very nature have no
problem “tweaking” the theory to incorporate “explanations” for such
“temporary aberrations” and so such pseudo science can never really be
proved “wrong”.

Indeed, it is only if the rigorous scientists, can develop a more plausible
mechanism and test this against data, that there is any real hope of
debunking this bogus science. And although there is some suggestion that
world temperatures seem to change periodically [is] due to solar activity
(historically, the number of sunspots seems to affect the world’s
temperature) this relationship is complex and poorly understood and the so
called “scientific consensus” sucks up all the funding that might take this
science forward. The problem is that the news media and through them the
public are so obsessed with global warming that most publicly funded
research money comes with strings saying “this money must be used to help
solve global warming”. So, it is understandable that the researchers who get
the money are those who are most vocal about tackling global warming, and
the researchers least likely to get funding are those who express any doubt
about CO2 being the cause of the temperature rise in the latter half of the
20th century. The result is that virtually nobody is looking at the other
possible causes of the 20th century’s temperature rise and so in the absence
of funding looking at alternatives, there is now an overwhelming “consensus”
amongst “scientists” not because a link has been scientifically proven, but
because the only explanation which any significant number of scientists are
investigating is the consensus.

To put it another way, the science community is being manipulated by the
environmentalists who demand that the scientists explain the warming of the
latter half of the 20th century. But having no proper scientific
explanation, and having only researched one possible causation, the science
community have no option but to offer rising levels of CO2 as their “best”
explanation of the warming, not because it is a “good” or scientific
explanation, but because however bad it is, there is currently nothing
better!

Proper science makes predictions and then tests those predictions against
the real data, and guess what, since around 2000 worldwide global
temperature have been stable. But, given the rate at which global
temperatures change, it will be at least 2020 before we will really know
whether this stabilisation is real, a temporary halt in the rise, or a
possible turning point suggesting cooling temperatures. Worse still, it will
only be sometime around 2030-40, and only if temperatures continue to be
cooler than 2000-2010 that we will know that those climatologists making so
much money from spreading the gospel of global warming were like those who
spread the crisis of the “millennium bug” - talking absolute rubbish!

What we must do?
Fortunately, whilst “tackling global warming” isn’t doing a lot of good, it
isn’t likely to do much harm either, and it does keep a sizable and
troublesome section of the population preoccupied. Whilst it is unlikely
that burning fossil fuels is going to lead us into the “fiery hell” of
global warming (indeed, historically warming tends to be beneficial to
mankind) the idea that we must reduce fossil fuel usage is useful, because
the key fossil fuels for the western economy (oil and gas) are fast running
out.

However, unlike “global warming” which is something “we have to do something
about” (i.e., we have to actively stop ourselves burning oil) if oil begins
to run out, we don’t have to do anything - because that’s not how it works,
we don’t have a choice - you can’t burn oil that isn’t there and when oil
runs out, the price will rise until it is as such a level that people simply
cannot afford to drive their cars, heat their homes, even turn on the
fridge - if that is what it takes to reduce our energy consumption. “What
must we do?” isn’t the right question, the energy that was stored in fossil
fuels took millions of years to lay down, and we can’t replace it. When it
is gone, it is gone, and whilst nuclear may marginally stem the end, it
can’t stop us going back to what will be essentially a pre-fossil fuel
economy.

We don’t have to do anything - we’re not in control - we are a passenger on
a driverless carriage with no option but to hang on and hope we survive the
ride! That’s all we have to do!

 

[Al_Masetti]

[Haseler concluded]

[Apologies to all for the length … but this is important … and it the apologia written by someone “original” … and there is no link that I was able to find]

---

Does it pay to be precautionary?
If my mistakes about Global Warming taught me anything, it is to be
skeptical about everything I hear even from those purporting to have a
rigorous scientific training. I even now question those who say something
that seems blatantly obvious such as “fossil fuels are running out”. And,
don’t make me laugh by mentioning the “precautionary approach”. That doesn’t
help when you fundamentally can’t trust the people telling you to take the
precautions. It comes down to this: Which way is it right to be skeptical?
Is man made global warming real? If it is real is it going to benefit us as
the past or is history somehow going to be overturned and the warmer period
will be worse? But if mankind is warming the globe and warmth is good for
mankind, isn’t the logical thing to increase fossil fuel use? Isn’t that the
precautionary approach? So many people have been deluded, and so much
nonsense written that the only precaution is not to trust anyone so don’t
even trust those who say oil is running out - for there may be far more oil
and gas, or there may be much less!

Only time will tell!

written by Mike Haseler

 

[Calliso]

Wow I could even get throught that last post before I wanted to start banging my head into the wall . Lets see we have 1998 being mentioned. Which once again was an el nino year and if you measure from 1999 as shown here woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/trend temperatures rose. Also temperature donlt have to rise year after year after year in order to prove global warming. Remember we have to look at long term trends not periods of a decade or less like all these skeptics want us to do. Course if your still curious how the last few decades have trended this post might be of interest. tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/ scroll down a bit for the graphs but I recommend reading the whole post. actually I remember tamino as a source in general. Also the models donlt actually say you must have temperature increases year after year after year either. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Also you donlt prove things in science… but if you want some evidence for co2 being a greenhouse gas read this,. aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm And maybe I missed it but if co2 isn;t causing the rising temperatures. Then what is? solar activity can;t explain at least the past 30 years of warming. skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm neither can volcanoes skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

I would recommend reading this post too on co2 and temperature. skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html

And actually I have seen discussion about oil limits and the potential effect on limits of global warming. I have also heard plenty of discussions on climate sensitivity. for instance looking in Nature I found this. nature.com/climate/2009/0905/full/climate.2009.41.html Real climate also has several posts related to climate sensisitivty. So while it is possible this guys colleagues didnt discuss it it is actually an issue that is discussed within the scientific community.

Really though I am not to impressed or convinced by this guys confession.

 

[Calliso]

For those lurking or otherwise in this thread that are interested in reading both sides of the debate here are some links on the AGW side of things…

realclimate.org/ yes itls a blog but it is run by climate scientists or those in related fields and is a great source for explaining the science behind climate change

skepticalscience.com/ has a section on arguments used by skeptics great source

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf I haven;t gotten through this one myself yet but figured it would be good to post

aip.org/history/climate/index.html havenl;t gotten through this one totally yet either but has been recommended to many times to skip over

dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf * I have actually read this one all the way through*

Anyway I figure that is good to start with even those it is only a fraction of what I have looked at.

 

[4elise]

For those lurking or otherwise in this thread that are interested in reading both sides of the debate here are some links on the AGW side of things…

realclimate.org/ yes itls a blog but it is run by climate scientists or those in related fields and is a great source for explaining the science behind climate change

skepticalscience.com/ has a section on arguments used by skeptics great source

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf I haven;t gotten through this one myself yet but figured it would be good to post

aip.org/history/climate/index.html havenl;t gotten through this one totally yet either but has been recommended to many times to skip over

dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf * I have actually read this one all the way through*

Anyway I figure that is good to start with even those it is only a fraction of what I have looked at.

I really appreciate your efforts in posting these links - it can be so difficult to shed light when some would rather believe that anyone speaking of climate change must have some ulterior motivation. I know I’ve said this (more than once ) before but this is why I am so grateful that we have the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change - catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - I appreciate all the information posted there.

 

[Joe_5859]

I admit I am very much undereducated on this topic, but I want to thank Calliso and Al Masetti for posting so many links on the topic. I have bookmarked this thread for later use. Even though you two very much disagree, it’s very helpful for me to see all these links from both sides in one place. So, thanks to you both.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has aligned itself with those political and legislative elements which seek some action on climate change, but without giving sufficient detail to say just what legislative actions are good or necessary, and what the adverse effects may be.

They seem to be advocating “no growth” or “limited growth” policies, in the name of protecting the envirnment and advocating for the poor. But I am not at all sure that no growth is better for the poor over the long term. The poor fare better in growing economies.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

It seems to me that the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has aligned itself with those political and legislative elements which seek some action on climate change, but without giving sufficient detail to say just what legislative actions are good or necessary, and what the adverse effects may be.

They seem to be advocating “no growth” or “limited growth” policies, in the name of protecting the envirnment and advocating for the poor. But I am not at all sure that no growth is better for the poor over the long term. The poor fare better in growing economies.

I just heard the other night that “Cap and Trade” was just passed while the media storm about Michael Jackson dominated the headlines. Does anyone know what the implications of this legislation will be, for the poor…and the rest of us?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I just heard the other night that “Cap and Trade” was just passed while the media storm about Michael Jackson dominated the headlines. Does anyone know what the implications of this legislation will be, for the poor…and the rest of us?

Oh my goodness, seriously? Bad news if this is true…

 

[4elise]

From the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change:

Pope’s Encyclical Promotes Environmental Justice & Solidarity
July 8, 2009 Update

Pope Benedict’s “Caritas in Veritate” (Charity in Truth) Outlines and Elaborates on Environmental Justice

On Tuesday, the Vatican released the Holy Father’s third encyclical letter, Charity in Truth, emphasizing that “charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples.” Focused primarily on international economic issues, Pope Benedict calls for a “true world political authority” to promote the common good of all and for “greater social responsibility” by businesses.

The encyclical re-emphasizes that the truth of the sacredness of human life and human dignity are to guide all we do as Catholics: “Openness to life is at the center of true development.”

In this context, Benedict XVI devotes the fourth chapter of the encyclical to “The development of people, rights and duties, the environment.” Here, the pope says that, “The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole.”

“In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation.”

Benedict warns against seeing nature as more important than people. But neither should the opposite be held as true: “which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a ‘grammar’ which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation.”

The problem of unequal distribution of non-renewable energy is a global responsibility and, “Here we are dealing with major issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone must responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future generations, particularly on the many young people in the poorer nations, who ‘ask to assume their active part in the construction of a better world.’”

An authentically Catholic response to the climate change as articulated by the Vatican and the U.S. Catholic bishops and carried out through the partners who are members of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has always been about the care of creation and protection of those most vulnerable to climate impacts. Pope Benedict reinforces these twin goals: “the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”

The document goes on to say: “The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction…when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits…the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.”

You are encouraged to read the full document. It is a rich and power re-articulation of Catholic social teaching and its application to many important moral issues of today including environmental issues.

Climate Change Legislation
There have been false reports or assumptions that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change have called for the support of the climate change bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. These reports and assumptions are false.

The Coalition takes its lead from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other partners. Bishop Howard Hubbard, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on International Policy and Ken Hackett, President and CEO of Catholic Relief Services wrote to members of the House recently and did not endorse the bill as a whole but did outline both the positive elements of the bill as well as areas needing improvement. See the text of the letter here.

A primary concern was the lack of money dedicated to assisting the poorest nations around the world adapt to climate change impacts.

Because of its highly technical nature, many aspects of the bill are beyond the competency of the bishops. For example, how many of the CO2 allocations are auctioned or given away. But they have insisted that the fundamental moral test for this legislation is that it does, in fact, begin to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and thus help protect the climate upon which all depend and that the burdens of climate change or public policies designed to address climate change do not unduly fall upon poor people at home and abroad.

As the bill stands now, it appears that both the policies and the resources to protect poor people at home are sufficient. Those provisions must not be weakened as the bill moves to the Senate. The policies that help poor nations adapt to climate change appear to be sound but the resources allocated to this goal are far from where they need to be.

In short, the bishops will support or oppose only those provisions in the bill concerning impacts on poor people here and abroad.

 

[Ender]

I know I’ve said this (more than once ) before but this is why I am so grateful that we have the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change - catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - I appreciate all the information posted there.

If one believes in AGW then it is reasonable to be grateful that there are are sites that support that position and provide scientific evidence and arguments to counter the opposing view … but since this is a scientific debate there is no justification for a site like catholicsandclimatechange which implies that there is such a thing as a Catholic position on climate change. Such a site is no more reasonable than a catholicsandextraterresterestrials web site would be.

There may be a scientific argument for AGW but there is surely no moral one and I for one resent our faith being used as a tool in the furtherance of someones personal agenda.

Ender

 

[4elise]

If one believes in AGW then it is reasonable to be grateful that there are are sites that support that position and provide scientific evidence and arguments to counter the opposing view … but since this is a scientific debate there is no justification for a site like catholicsandclimatechange which implies that there is such a thing as a Catholic position on climate change. Such a site is no more reasonable than a catholicsandextraterresterestrials web site would be.

There may be a scientific argument for AGW but there is surely no moral one and I for one resent our faith being used as a tool in the furtherance of someones personal agenda.

Ender

I’m sorry that you resent this - but it seems that the leadership of our Church has found a place where this is more than a scientific debate, and I for one am grateful for this.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Interesting approach:

popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4323558.html

 

[4elise]

Interesting approach:

popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4323558.html

A good post Al - and despite the article countering various studies and their conclusion - which I agree was a good approach, taking each and looking at them individually:

"Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate modeler, author and PM editorial advisor, concurs with the consensus view that the planet’s temperature is rising due largely to human activity."

I can see where the studies that are reported can cause the backlash he is talking about ***"“There’s a bit of a backlash amid people who have a brain,” says Schmidt. “It’s akin to [the media’s reporting on] medical studies. It adds to people’s confusion.” ***

How many times have we heard ‘wine is good for you’ - ‘wine is bad for you’ - or the numerous health studies that come out contradicting each other right and left - then it gets to the point where people say ‘all medical reports are to be suspect’ —

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

How many times have we heard ‘wine is good for you’ - ‘wine is bad for you’ - or the numerous health studies that come out contradicting each other right and left - then it gets to the point where people say ‘all medical reports are to be suspect’ —

Hi Elise:wave:

I believe wine*** is*** good for us…and chocolate, too:yup:…thanks for your work on this thread, and for your* very* courteous and respectful manner!

 

[Al_Masetti]

Looks like India and China are not going along with cutting back on carbon footprint and all the rest. Not likely the United States could cut back all by itself to make much of a difference … especially when the cost to the United States would be such heavy taxation on the people as to cause its bankruptcy.

India and China want growth. It looks like they don’t believe in the need for man-made action to combat climate change … or they believe that climate change is natural and normal.

washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/10/killing-cap-trade/