Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Ender]

I think that it has been shown that pollution contributes to climate change.

First, it hasn’t even been shown that CO2 causes climate change; that’s what the climate change debate is all about. Second, claiming that pollution in general causes climate change is simply ridiculous. If I change the oil in my car and pour it in the creek behind my house will my pollution of the stream cause the climate to change? This is also a bit of a bait and switch tactic: I oppose actions that I believe will be ineffective in affecting the climate and you twist that to infer that I am indifferent to pollution. The inference is inappropriate.

** Since climate change has been shown to effect everyone, is lessening ones personal impact not then the ethical/moral thing to do?**

I should certainly not do anything that negatively affects others, but that’s not the issue. The question, which is purely a scientific one, is whether or not man can have a significant effect on the climate. If I believe that man cannot affect the climate and act accordingly then I have not acted immorally.

The morality of any action pertaining to climate change is determined solely by the intention behind it. The question of climate change is morally neutral; it is only ones intent that has a moral aspect to it. Why are you so intent on judging my position as immoral; why isn’t it sufficient for you to think it merely mistaken? I have identified the attributes that determine whether an act is moral and you steadfastly ignore them - which is not surprising as they leave you with no basis for continuing to claim that climate change is a moral issue.

Ender

 

[Bill_Cherry]

First, it hasn’t even been shown that CO2 causes climate change; that’s what the climate change debate is all about.

I am inclined to believe that there are more factors in the climate change debate than mere CO2. Although, when the issue first arose CO2 was the primary suspect. I believe that the fluctuations in the earths climate have always occurred and will continue to occur. They just get more extreme each time.

Second, claiming that pollution in general causes climate change is simply ridiculous.

The entire universe is more interconnected than is apparent to your average individual.We do not always see effects of our actions immediately and we do not always see them to be of any consequence unless it effects us individually - immediately.

If I change the oil in my car and pour it in the creek behind my house will my pollution of the stream cause the climate to change?

** If you pour oil from your car into the stream, it probably won’t raise or lower the temperature around your home, but it will have an effect on the environment in which the fish, turtles and frogs live…that would be their ‘climate’. NOUN:

1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest.
   **

This is also a bit of a bait and switch tactic: I oppose actions that I believe will be ineffective in affecting the climate and you twist that to infer that I am indifferent to pollution. The inference is inappropriate.

No bait and switch. I assure you my intentions that’s a morality thing right? were in no way malevolent. I do, however recognize your arguments has having a certain political overtone. One which I do not support. Trust me,…I do want to be proven wrong. But, all the evidence has convinced me thus far that the Vatican is correct. And NOT just because I am Catholic who is trying to be obedient to his faith.

I should certainly not do anything that negatively affects others, but that’s not the issue. The question, which is purely a scientific one, is whether or not man can have a significant effect on the climate. If I believe that man cannot affect the climate and act accordingly then I have not acted immorally.

I will accept that. I will also concede at least enough to say that I think Al Gore’s statement that Global Warming is a moral issue was presumptuous at the time. But, given the evidence that it IS an issue of either extreme warming or extreme cooling each time it fluctuates, and that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible that it is becoming more extreme more than likely from humanities effect on the environment, then simply denying the evidence at a conscious level is simply a lie and that is a sin. And to deny it at a subconscious level would be a defense mechanism of some sort. Probably based on fear.More than likely a fear that everything you know could possibly be wrong.

The morality of any action pertaining to climate change is determined solely by the intention behind it. The question of climate change is morally neutral; it is only ones intent that has a moral aspect to it.

**I disagree,…for the reasons stated above. Once you know you are then accountable. **

Why are you so intent on judging my position as immoral; why isn’t it sufficient for you to think it merely mistaken?

** I don’t think I ever said that or inferred it. If so, then it wasn’t intentional. I am simply trying to have a good conversation. I am willing to concede and admit if I am the one who is mistaken. There is no shame in that.I apologize if I made you uneasy.**

I have identified the attributes that determine whether an act is moral and you steadfastly ignore them - which is not surprising as they leave you with no basis for continuing to claim that climate change is a moral issue.

Ender

Paragragh 5
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO H.E. Mr NOEL FAHEY
NEW AMBASSADOR OF IRELAND TO THE HOLY SEE

Papal Summer Residence, Castel Gandolfo
Saturday, 15 September 2007

The promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are indeed matters of grave importance for the entire human family, and no nation or business sector should ignore them. As scientific research demonstrates the worldwide effects that human actions can have on the environment, the complexity of the vital relationship between the ecology of the human person and the ecology of nature becomes increasingly apparent.

I’m afraid I have to go with the Vatican on this one.

 

[Ender]

I do, however recognize your arguments has having a certain political overtone. One which I do not support.

I don’t do overtones. Or pastels. I work in black and white. My statements are either correct or incorrect and you have to base your response on what I actually say and not on what might be inferred even if the inference seems reasonable.

** Trust me,…I do want to be proven wrong. But, all the evidence has convinced me thus far that the Vatican is correct. And NOT just because I am Catholic who is trying to be obedient to his faith.**

On this subject it makes no moral difference whether the Vatican is correct or not. It is a scientific debate.

given the evidence that it IS an issue of either extreme warming or extreme cooling each time it fluctuates, and that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible that it is becoming more extreme more than likely from humanities effect on the environment, then simply denying the evidence at a conscious level is simply a lie and that is a sin

.I think this is the inevitable conclusion your logic forces you to make: I’m lying. It is all that’s left to you in your struggle to portray this as a moral issue. You could of course assume that I’m simply too stupid to understand the complexities of the scientific debate … and quite frankly that would be the more generous assumption. I would rather you doubt my intelligence than my integrity. Nonetheless, I, like a great number of world class scientists, do not believe that man has or can have any significant effect on climate.

** And to deny it at a subconscious level would be a defense mechanism of some sort. Probably based on fear.More than likely a fear that everything you know could possibly be wrong.**

Right. So the alternative to being a liar is to be self-deluded. A more charitable assumption is simply to accept that I am neither dishonest nor delusional and mean - and can scientifically defend - the positions I take.

Ender

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I don’t do overtones. Or pastels. I work in black and white. My statements are either correct or incorrect and you have to base your response on what I actually say and not on what might be inferred even if the inference seems reasonable.

** Accepted. I apologize if I appear to be jumping to conclusions. i, too, try to remain objective.**

On this subject it makes no moral difference whether the Vatican is correct or not. It is a scientific debate.** I do not believe that the Vatican is hasty on any of their positions. The Vatican does have their own scientists. I also believe that the Vatican does have our best interests at heart. If this makes me naive…**

I think this is the inevitable conclusion your logic forces you to make: I’m lying. It is all that’s left to you in your struggle to portray this as a moral issue. You could of course assume that I’m simply too stupid to understand the complexities of the scientific debate … and quite frankly that would be the more generous assumption. I would rather you doubt my intelligence than my integrity. Nonetheless, I, like a great number of world class scientists, do not believe that man has or can have any significant effect on climate.
Right. So the alternative to being a liar is to be self-deluded. A more charitable assumption is simply to accept that I am neither dishonest nor delusional and mean - and can scientifically defend - the positions I take.

Ender

Touche. :knight2:In my own defense, I was merely trying to reason why I think you are mistaken. You are clearly intelligent.And I do not believe you are stupid. I would just ignore you if that was the case. Deluded? No. Forcing me to challenge my method of presenting my argument? Definitely. And for that I do thank you.

 

[Ender]

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

OK, let’s analyze this piece by piece.

The promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are indeed matters of grave importance for the entire human family …
Agreed. Climate change is a matter of grave importance.

… and no nation or business sector should ignore them.
Agreed - and I have not ignored climate change; that’s why I am engaged in this debate. Sustainable development is outside the scope of this particular thread, besides which no one is arguing in favor of unsustainable development.

As scientific research demonstrates the worldwide effects that human actions can have on the environment …
Agreed, but we are not here discussing man’s effect on the environment in general; the debate on this thread is solely about the scientific validity of the theory of AGW. As to whether man has affected the climate, scientific research has not demonstrated this … nor - and this is the important point - does Benedict claim that it has. Climate and environment are not synonymous terms.

… the complexity of the vital relationship between the ecology of the human person and the ecology of nature becomes increasingly apparent.
Agreed, but once again, there is nothing here that posits the moral requirement to take a particular position on a scientific theory. Nor is the ecology of nature synonymous with climate.

I’m afraid I have to go with the Vatican on this one.
As do I because I recognize that what the Vatican actually said is a great deal less than you assume it to be. On the question of the validity of the theory of AGW I am going with the scientists who seem to have a better explanation of the facts and about which the Vatican has said - and can contribute - nothing.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

I think Ender has been successful in shining the light on this issue for what it really is.[SIGN]Great Job[/SIGN]

 

[Ender]

** I was merely trying to reason why I think you are mistaken. **

But this is an irrelevant issue; surely all that matters is **whether **I am mistaken, which is all that can be properly discussed. It is all that I have focused on and all that concerns me.

I have a particular aversion to what has become the prevailing form of argument of our time: my opponent is evil (dishonest, uncaring, selfish, greedy …), everything an evil person says is false, therefore my position is obviously true and I don’t need to debate the particulars or refute my opponents arguments.

Now don’t cavil at my use of “evil”; just choose the denigrating euphemism you prefer (e.g. lying, delusional…) and plug it in the sentence above. I am being a bit facetious here (but not much) to make the point. The reason it is so important to some that this be deemed a moral issue is precisely to paint the opponents as immoral and to win the scientific argument without the need to debate it.

Assume for a moment that I am lying through my teeth, that I own coal mines and decrepit factories, that I am pouring PCB’s into the local water supply, am totally selfish, and greedier than anyone Shakespeare ever portrayed. Does that in any way affect the truth of anything I say? Truth stands on its own and is completely unaffected by the nature of the person who utters it. It is not so much the viciousness of the You-are-evil-therefore-you-are-wrong-therefore-I-am-right argument that offends, it is its utter vacuousness that grates on me.

Ender

 

[mapleoak]

I am inclined to believe that there are more factors in the climate change debate than mere CO2. Although, when the issue first arose CO2 was the primary suspect. I believe that the fluctuations in the earths climate have always occurred and will continue to occur. They just get more extreme each time.

We can reduce the effect of man on the climate of the earth to mere speculation. It is also speculation as to what man decides the climate ‘should’ be. Therefore we cannot say man has a moral obligation to do either x or y in order to influence the climate into being this or that.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

But this is an irrelevant issue; surely all that matters is **whether **I am mistaken, which is all that can be properly discussed. It is all that I have focused on and all that concerns me.

I have a particular aversion to what has become the prevailing form of argument of our time: my opponent is evil (dishonest, uncaring, selfish, greedy …), everything an evil person says is false, therefore my position is obviously true and I don’t need to debate the particulars or refute my opponents arguments.

Now don’t cavil at my use of “evil”; just choose the denigrating euphemism you prefer (e.g. lying, delusional…) and plug it in the sentence above. I am being a bit facetious here (but not much) to make the point. The reason it is so important to some that this be deemed a moral issue is precisely to paint the opponents as immoral and to win the scientific argument without the need to debate it.

Assume for a moment that I am lying through my teeth, that I own coal mines and decrepit factories, that I am pouring PCB’s into the local water supply, am totally selfish, and greedier than anyone Shakespeare ever portrayed. Does that in any way affect the truth of anything I say? Truth stands on its own and is completely unaffected by the nature of the person who utters it. It is not so much the viciousness of the You-are-evil-therefore-you-are-wrong-therefore-I-am-right argument that offends, it is its utter vacuousness that grates on me.

Ender

:blush:WOW!

**Your logic is indisputable. I concede. Climate change is NOT a MORAL issue. I apologize for my inadvertent statements on your position. I assure you no harm was intended. It has been humbling. :tiphat: I salute you,sir!

I look forward to further encounters!

Respectfully,
Bill**

 

[Calliso]

On the issue of ideal climate and what not. It;s not really about ideal climate. It;s not that automatically being 2 degrees or more warmer is a bad thing no matter what. A big part of the problem is the rate of change. It might be one thing if this was a all natural change occuring over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. We would have more then enough time to adapt. But when it;s happening in centuries and even decades that is a different story. And leaves little time to adapt to changes.

 

[Ender]

:blush:WOW!

**Your logic is indisputable. I concede. Climate change is NOT a MORAL issue. I apologize for my inadvertent statements on your position. I assure you no harm was intended. It has been humbling. :tiphat: I salute you,sir!

I look forward to further encounters!

Respectfully,
Bill**

Bill -

Wow indeed. I don’t think I’ve ever had someone admit to being convinced by an argument before. I feel a little like a dog that has chased squirrels all his life and has finally caught one … and has no idea what to do with it. Anyway, I never took offense at any of your comments and look forward to having at it again on some other topic.

Ender

 

[mpi]

vatican.va/holy_father/be…reland_en.html

Again, I speak the truth and I will not be denied by those trying to obfuscate things. It is not the position of the Vatican or the Holy See that nations need to reduce CO2 emissions. Let those who mock the truth that I provide try to provide evidence that I am wrong.

 

[4elise]

Again, I speak the truth and I will not be denied by those trying to obfuscate things. It is not the position of the Vatican or the Holy See that nations need to reduce CO2 emissions. Let those who mock the truth that I provide try to provide evidence that I am wrong.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9868
Perhaps the Vatican working to be the first carbon neutral state says something? Otherwise why else would they do that?

 

[TEPO]

With a sigh of releif, I can still say, the Church still is and should always be about Jesus, the New Covenant for us to learn from and imitate.

And I quote from the book “Doers of The Word”, “Moral Theology For the Third Millennium”, written by Terence Kennedy, C.Ss.R.
— A specialist in Moral theology who has taught in Rome at both the Gregorian University and the Alphonsian Academy.—

"He seals his presence by striking a covenant with each section of the universe in its peculiarity. And so with the cosmos itself we have the covenant of creation, the covenant God made when he saw that all he had created was good and that in spite of human disobedience creation was still to be at the service of humanity. It never lost its radical purity and goodness. The priestly account of creation with all its seven orders leading up to man, with sun and moon, with stars and galaxies, with rain from the heavens and water in the rivers, with fish and crawling things, with fowl and stock, with all the animals, and finally the human being who gives them all their names — this is Gods guarantee that the world is a good product, that it is well made."

 

[TEPO]

—One more reason the United States should not adopt U.N. issued ideas—

newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm

“although there exists both in England and Scotland an established Church. Catholic disabilities have been almost entirely removed. Catholics are only excluded from the throne and from a few of the highest offices of the State.”

—oh, is that all?—

 

[mpi]

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9868
Perhaps the Vatican working to be the first carbon neutral state says something? Otherwise why else would they do that?

The Vatican is also essentially a theocracy and has many laws that are not seen elsewhere in the world. The CCC also does not call on other states to mimic the laws of the Vatican.

 

[mpi]

The Vatican is also essentially a theocracy and has many laws that are not seen elsewhere in the world. The CCC also does not call on other states to mimic the laws of the Vatican.

In the previous post I was referring to the city-state.

If being CO2 neutral was so important to the Holy See and the vatican then why don’t they pay to make all of the Catholic properties in the world “carbon-neutral”? I’ll answer my own question - because it is not a moral issue to be carbon neutral and it is not a moral issue to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting that everybody now says “climate change” instead of “global warming”. Is that because it’s getting cooler, and harder to persuade people that their world is getting warmer when it isn’t?

 

[Calliso]

Oops!

Looks like a bunch of German scientists are now saying that man-made climate change (or man-made global warming … or whatever the current Politically Correct buzz word du jour is) is, in fact, bogus.

In fact, some of the German scientists were even so-called IPCC scientists.

Big oops.

climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

No point in “taking action on climate change to protect the poor” … if there is no actual need to take action on climate change.

---

Here are a few direct quotes:

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. (See “Related Links” at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)

Well first off the vast majority of the “scientists” on that list donlt have any expertise in climate. In fact there is a total of one climatologist and a handful of meterologists. And many of the so called scientists on the list aren;t even scientists. jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-chancellor-angela-merkel.html

Now as for that study mentioned in that link the one that claims that the temperature trend can be explained by a 1976 change in the pacifiac ocean or whatever. Lets just say it;s a good example of how sometimes even peer review isn;t perfect…

tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
and a paper recently submitted, cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf

Now as for the whining about short term trends. I thought this was a apporiate little graph. mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2482

And now I will once again post the links that show why you can;t look at such short time periods and why a cooling over such short time periods doesn;t matter anyway!

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

I mean really looking at the long term trend you can find lots of periods of a few years or so of cooling or flat temperatures. But I think it would be obvious to anyone that looked at a long term temperature graph over the past 100 years or so that we are warming right?

And I thought this post was interesting as well. bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/

And we got yet another list of so called dissenting scientists most I bet of which don;t have any expertise in climate science heck I bet if I looked into it I would find that many of that 700 aren;t even really scientists!

And the IPCC models donlt actually predict a year to year constant rise in temperature anyway. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say

As for the whole Baum thing initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/denialist-backlash-vs-rudy-baum.html

Really all I saw in that link was cherry picks seriously I am going to end up pulling my hair out if 1998 is mentioned again! and a bunch of trash nothing new other then that one study mentioned in the very beginning. Which as it turns out is more then likely trash as well.

 

[Calliso]

Interesting that everybody now says “climate change” instead of “global warming”. Is that because it’s getting cooler, and harder to persuade people that their world is getting warmer when it isn’t?

I am pretty sure warming hasn;t stopped actually not over the long term at least remember there has been tons of flucuations this century. But it is important to remember that warming also causes other changes. Such as changes in precipitation…then there are the effects of increased co2 in the oceans which has been causing ocean acidification. The term climate change helps make it clear that it is not as simple as the earth is warming and that is that.