Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Bill_Cherry]

“Green” energy certainly has potential to replace oil if for no other reason than there appears to be a finite amount of oil, and of that, a finite amount that is recoverable. There appears to be way more coal than oil available, and there is the potential to clean up coal prior to and during useage. But unless there are some serious breakthroughs in solar technology, it will continue to be an expensive, cumbersome and very secondary producer of energy. Wind power has its problems, not the least of which is the lack of consistency of production.

The likelyhood of any method replacing oil for energy production is nulcear and coal and the issues surrounding both continue to be debated.

On a positive note…
We are a resourceful species… i think we’ll make it. Provided the Parousia doesn’t happen very soon…

 

[Bill_Cherry]

But Diet for a Small Planet says I must eat beans!

How will I ever be politically correct?!?

Well, I think that historically the Catholic Church has never really been politically correct. To bad ‘beano’ isn’t vegan.

Again, I would like to add that it is the liberal and conservative medias which keep us divided over the issues which the Vatican is concerned about. I do not understand why we can not embrace both. Except that political platforms which are more prominent do not embrace both.

Very frustrating…

 

[Bishop_David]

if is the methane the problem , we r gonna die soon, because next energy will not be nuke, but idrathe of methane, u can extract idromethane from deepest of earth, but the problem is, when this ice(yes idrato di metano is icemathane) touch the water it become gas, since it will be extract mostly from under the sea, ther will be a LOT of methane evaporation.
Ps. few weeks ago mistery of bermuda triange was solved, there are a lol of idrathe of methane(idrato di metano sorry i dont know english name) underwater, when it comes to sea level under gas form it such down boats and even planes(because it changes the air consictence and the plane go down.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

if is the methane the problem , we r gonna die soon, because next energy will not be nuke, but idrathe of methane, u can extract idromethane from deepest of earth, but the problem is, when this ice(yes idrato di metano is icemathane) touch the water it become gas, since it will be extract mostly from under the sea, ther will be a LOT of methane evaporation.
Ps. few weeks ago mistery of bermuda triange was solved, there are a lol of idrathe of methane(idrato di metano sorry i dont know english name) underwater, when it comes to sea level under gas form it such down boats and even planes(because it changes the air consictence and the plane go down.

that is interesting…must google:thumbsup:

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Oh yeah,…I remember now. I think we posted stuff about that a few posts back… It seems that if we could ‘harvest’ this methane it could be a boon to the alternative energy dilemma. aren’t the byproducts beneficial?

 

[Bishop_David]

byproducts? u mean biofuel? this is a double face thing. yes free and sane energy, but food field will be convert to energy field(shugar field etc.) in brazil they are f*kd up with this solution, yes they have alchool cars, but they must buy some food from other regions.

 

[otjm]

Oh yeah,…I remember now. I think we posted stuff about that a few posts back… It seems that if we could ‘harvest’ this methane it could be a boon to the alternative energy dilemma. aren’t the byproducts beneficial?

Hm. The largest methane producers now provide quite a number of byproducts; no idea what byproducts we might get from harvesting a new source.

Milk? Steaks? Hides?

Rocks?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

No, silly
Check it out. We already use it to heat our homes…why not cars and stuff,too?

naturalgas.org/overview/combust.asp

 

[TEPO]

byproducts? u mean biofuel? this is a double face thing. yes free and sane energy, but food field will be convert to energy field(shugar field etc.) in brazil they are f*kd up with this solution, yes they have alchool cars, but they must buy some food from other regions.

Sounds like an expensive approach to gaining fuel (tapping deep underwater sources). But are you suggesting this could solve problems concerning the latest bio-fuel techniques from Brazil which involve farming old food sources now for fuel? Which cut off food supplies for the people?

Now it’s all become much more real for me… Our food supply is being threatened in the name of fuel! This is getting scary!

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Interesting tweet I just received
Ethanol fight Bubbling up
freep.com/article/20090828/COL34/90828006/1202/RSS

 

[Contarini]

I agree whith you wholeheartedly. The world hated Jesus first, and so the world hates us.
So we should’nt accuse each other of acting immoral on either side???

Yes, I think we should call immorality immorality. We should not, however, engage in guilt by association and smear tactics, and we should recognize that people may defend immoral positions for moral reasons. That doesn’t make them right, but we are in no position to judge their motives.

Edwin

 

[4elise]

Sounds like an expensive approach to gaining fuel (tapping deep underwater sources). But are you suggesting this could solve problems concerning the latest bio-fuel techniques from Brazil which involve farming old food sources now for fuel? Which cut off food supplies for the people?

Now it’s all become much more real for me… Our food supply is being threatened in the name of fuel! This is getting scary!

I’ll let someone else take this one… my head hurts.

 

[Contarini]

1. If pushing for the urgency of MMCC will prove damaging in the Catholic fight against abortion.

There’s no reason why it should. Moral causes are not zero-sum games. We can defend *all *moral causes and condemn *all *immorality. We just have to have the courage to buck the cultural pressures telling us that we have to accept some pre-selected set of moral positions linked to partisan politics.

Now, the Bishops statement makes sense, because he shows the two sides: “earths atmosphere” & “All Gods children”.

There are not two sides. The two things are completely harmonious with each other.

So answer this: If drastic measures towards cutting CO2 are emplaced, which in turn, financially harm the American economy. And a free unified healthcare plan is emplaced, how much of an increase from 1.2 million abortions a year could we have? Could it reach 2,000,000.00 per year? And should Catholics be concerned with increased abortion due to preventing MMCC?

Please respond rationally… I know this is hard, but the questions must be asked!!!

That’s interesting, because you are adopting the argument used by many Catholics and other prolifers to justify voting for Obama. I didn’t buy it then, and I don’t buy it now, although I take it seriously and I respect the sincerity of those who make it (which most of the anti-Obama folks on this board did not). The polls I’ve seen do not indicate that financial reasons are the primary motivator behind abortion–many well-to-do people have abortions. Your argument makes anything that harms the economy an implicit action in favor of abortion. I don’t think we can reason this way. We might be called do so something for moral reasons that made the country less wealthy. It is then people’s responsibility not to respond to that loss of wealth by murdering their children. We can’t say that our primary goal is to keep people rich so that they won’t have an excuse/reason to have abortions. That would lead to a very distorted set of moral priorities.

Edwin

 

[otjm]

I’ll let someone else take this one… my head hurts.

You put de lime in de coconut, you drink ‘em bot’ togedder
Put de lime in de coconut and you’ll feel better,
Put de lime in de coconut, drink ‘em bot’ up,
Put de lime in de coconut and call me in the morning."

Prescription per Harry Nilsson. Works for bellyaches; may work for headaches.

 

[Contarini]

Such a plan would never work with the independent minded freedom loving people of our country - to try to tell someone who they could marry and who they could have children with - nope, just not buying this as an outcome of working to stop climate change.

I agree that this is not the necessary outcome of working to stop climate change, and indeed that the connection Sailor Kenshin is trying to draw is downright silly (some people no doubt advocate both, but there is no intrinsic link whatsoever). But your confidence in the “independent minded freedom loving people of our country” is misguided. Eugenics was widely accepted in early 20th century America, even including forced sterilizations of the “unfit” in some cases.

Edwin

 

[TEPO]

Yes, I think we should call immorality immorality. We should not, however, engage in guilt by association and smear tactics, and we should recognize that people may defend immoral positions for moral reasons. That doesn’t make them right, but we are in no position to judge their motives.

Edwin

As far as me judging morality, I dont think I’ve engaged in smear tactics. I try to judge right from wrong in each individual case, and then come up with the most rightous decision I can make based on my interpretation to what God wants.

But I’m not sure what you mean by “guilt by association”. Can you explain this?

 

[Contarini]

I’ll start things off on the “issues we dont agree upon”…
particularly points 1 and 2…
MMCC is not science it is psuedoscience. It is not real…

the following is from: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

“As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
That’s pretty much how it goes with this debate. Someone presents some evidence that things are not exactly as Al Gore claims, and they are immediately attacked as being loonie or just plain nuts.”

the following is from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Psuedoscienceseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.

—How to identify psuedoscience—

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4. Absence of progress
5. Personalization of issues
6. Use of misleading language
7. Lack of scientific consensus

I think MMCC is guilty of 1, 2, 3, 4, and definantly 7

Actually, the example you cite gives us no way to know which side is guilty of “pseudo-science.” You assume that it’s the pro-MMCC crowd purely because you are biased against them.

Edwin

 

[Joe_5859]

Sounds like an expensive approach to gaining fuel (tapping deep underwater sources). But are you suggesting this could solve problems concerning the latest bio-fuel techniques from Brazil which involve farming old food sources now for fuel? Which cut off food supplies for the people?

Now it’s all become much more real for me… Our food supply is being threatened in the name of fuel! This is getting scary!

FYI, the poster you were replying to is no longer among us. He was trolling.

 

[Contarini]

As far as me judging morality, I dont think I’ve engaged in smear tactics. I try to judge right from wrong in each individual case, and then come up with the most rightous decision I can make based on my interpretation to what God wants.

But I’m not sure what you mean by “guilt by association”. Can you explain this?

I’m thinking primarily of some of Sailor Kenshin’s posts claiming that fighting global warming is necessarily linked to eugenics and even Nazism. He has not presented any *logical *reason for this beyond the fact some people have adhered to both. That’s classic “guilt by association.”

Your claims about the Gaia theory are a more defensible version of the same tactic. More defensible because one can easily see why the worship of the earth is linked to attitudes about global warming. But still the same tactic because you do not show why the two are *necessarily *linked.

For that matter, I am not convinced that the “Gaia hypothesis” contradicts any truth of the Christian faith. The earth may in some sense be a living entity created by God–what Christian doctrine does this contradict?

But the main point is that Christians care for the earth for clearly *Christian *reasons–that God created the earth and gave it into our care–just as pantheists care for it for distinctively pantheistic reasons.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sorry, but once you convert to Catholocism, then I will be happy to discuss Bible text with you. Until then, I will not!

I suggest that you check what I am saying against a standard work of Catholic exegesis such as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

Edwin