K
kennewickmike
Guest
Are the Bishops and Pope wrong? Should we be emailing them telling them they have been fooled by people with political agendas?
- Status
4
4elise
Guest
Exactly, we claim that we trust their leadership in other areas of our lives - yet in this one some Catholic people here seem to be assuming that we should discount their leadership on this issue???
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
climate change happens regardless of human activity, its a circular process over thousands of years…
hence- why have they found plant life under antarctic ice? makes no since if you think warming is a new thing, as obviously for plants to be older than the ice, the plants were there first. for ice to come, it must then gotten colder…
oism.org/pproject/
and plety others… if only people would stop listening to the political show boating. if only people would embrace actual change, vs a different path to the same place and vote libertarian/constitutionalists instead of democrat/republican…
hence- why have they found plant life under antarctic ice? makes no since if you think warming is a new thing, as obviously for plants to be older than the ice, the plants were there first. for ice to come, it must then gotten colder…
oism.org/pproject/
and plety others… if only people would stop listening to the political show boating. if only people would embrace actual change, vs a different path to the same place and vote libertarian/constitutionalists instead of democrat/republican…
B
Brendan
Guest
No, it’s just that the Pope himself notes that action is not necessarily required at this point
Note the “IF”. The OP has change the pope’s word from “If” to “Since”
He also notes that more prudent study is necessary and not to jump to any conclusions
So he says that we need to work on agreement on what model of development is best, instead, we have a model being rammed down our throats.
So, yes I am in full agreement with the Pope’s assessment of the situation.
J
JimG
Guest
To the extent that the USCCB–or the Pope–enter the political arena, their opinions are to be given as much weight as anyone else speaking in the political arena. The USCCB’s liberal political bent is particularly well known. Infallibility does not of course, extend beyond faith and morals to matters of climatology or politics!
We should give the USCCB’s statements on climatology and its political views the same weight as, say this article in First Things concerning the same matter.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
I’ll give you credit. Your the only one that has come out and said the the Bishops and the Pope are wrong on this issue.
J
JimG
Guest
I read the USCCB letter linked by the OP. The letter was rather vague on the science and emphasized, as is not unusual for a USCCB committee–the need for more government funding! Why am I not surprised? It would certainly not be unusual for the USCCB to be wrong on a political issue–the organization did, after all, spend years and tons of parishioners’ dollars supporting ACORN. I haven’t seen any scientific opinion by the pope, but I doubt that he’s been entirely co-opted by politics of global warming.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
I do agree with them on this issue. If we are going to proceed with new green technologies, and we are, we need to make sure that it is not going to hurt the poor or even the middle class.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The attached quotations from the Pope did not mention global warming at all, and certainly not man-made global warming, and most definitely did not instruct Americans to do without power or buy “carbon credits” from Al Gore. One reference mentioned “climate change”. Climate change can be this or it can be that, and can be affected by a number of things; some of them in man’s control, and some not. There is no question that there has been significant climate change in sub-Saharan Africa, for example; probably linked to deforestation. A good portion of the Mediterranean basin has sustained the same. Many islands have as well. The Pope did not explain what, exactly, he was talking about.
The USCCB is, in my view, a political subdivision of the Democrat party, run by career bureaucrats. When it proposed to give a million dollars to ACORN last summer, when there are seminaries and convents in the world turning away vocations for lack of money, and people needing AIDS treatment drugs in Africa, the USCCB lost my respect totally.
The truth is there are a lot of scientists who don’t agree with the view that manmade global warming is ruining the earth, or even that there is manmade global warming. I do know there has been no climate change (except cooling) in the last few years where I live.
I also know that our rainfall is favorably affected by warmer water in the east-central Pacific, and I’m glad to see that it’s warming right now; quite possibly to El Nino levels.
I also know that I tend many acres of forest, and keep it growing and healthy; something folks say is good for the ecology. But it does take burning fuel to do that effectively.
When it comes to the obligations of Catholics, I would certainly think there is a moral obligation to avoid wantonly despoiling the earth. I would think there is a moral obligation not only to avoid radical deforestation in sensitive areas, but to replace forest growth when and where one can. I would think there is a moral obligation to protect the waters of the earth, native plant species and wild animals, so long as those things can be done consistent with fostering human life and prosperity. I suppose, at the radical extreme, if one wanted to foster CO2 reduction, one would shut down the cities entirely and do everything possible to reduce the population. There are those who would.
When it comes to specific public policies and actions, I am inclined toward caution when there is no real certainty concerning either problems or solutions, and particularly when large wealth transfers are involved. Why should I believe that increasing government revenues (both here and abroad) and those of politically favored entities through “cap and trade” serves any legitimate human purpose, and why should I, as a Catholic, feel I should support a policy that will make my neighbor’s heating bill go up?
When the global climate has been much warmer in the past than now, when the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been much higher in the past than now, and when scientists don’t agree where whether or why there is manmade global warming, I do not feel it is mandatory on me to support what seems much more like a political agenda than stewardship of the earth.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
My biggest complaint about this whole topic is how it is either Al Gore this or that. We as Catholics need to care about God’s creation. Why do we have to either be on one side or another? Should we not be looking at the topic instead of the party? We have the numbers to change the direction of the conversation. We can make sure this topic stays in the middle so that it does not go to far right or to far left.
People say they want all the fighting in Washington to stop but I don’t think so. Look at the political section of this site. It is full of nothing but hatred for different political parties, and this is a religious site! It would be different if it were only about abortion but it is not.
People say they want all the fighting in Washington to stop but I don’t think so. Look at the political section of this site. It is full of nothing but hatred for different political parties, and this is a religious site! It would be different if it were only about abortion but it is not.
P
Professor_Bunky
Guest
I strongly agree with Sailor Kenshin, aspawkoski4th, Sempirveritas and all the other posters who have pointed out that man-made global warming is a politcally-motivated myth based on junk science. The vast majority of people who publiclly promote this fallacy are not scientists or technical professions (including Al Gore & the Hollywood Crowd).
As a scientist & engineer I have several significant points of concern with the THEORY of man-made global warming:
Climate Confusion by Dr. Roy Spencer
Read this book.
As a scientist & engineer I have several significant points of concern with the THEORY of man-made global warming:
- The bulk of the research is based on computer simulations of complex and incomplete mathematical models. These models ASSUME CO2 is the cause of temperature rises instead of a result of it. They also ignore water vapor as factor because it can’t be easily measured. I can write a computer program to get any results I want just by playing with the equations & my assumptions. That doesn’t make it right.
- The temperature date used by these researchers is primarily from satellites, which have only been available for the past 30 years. Climate change phenomena occur over much longer time spans. As others have pointed out here, there have been freezing & warming cycles on the earth long before there were SUVs. Even Mars has these cycles.
- It’s also notoiously difficult to get accurate temperature readings. The research is based on very small temperature changes. What’s the temperature in your house right now? If you go from room to room, or even to different places in the same room, you’ll see temperature variations of at least a few degrees.
- A large part of the global warming hysteria consists of dire predictions of catastrophes. Even if we are in a warming trend right now (and the evidence linking it to human activity is even more questionable than that supporting global warming), it could actually benefit people by increasing growing seasons in cooler climates. When Europe had a mini warm spell, food production and the overall standard of living improved. Also, who’s to say the climate of the past 50 or 100 years is normal? Throughout the known history of the climate has always been changing (whether we like it or not). Saying we can change the climate one way or another sounds like arrogance to me.
Climate Confusion by Dr. Roy Spencer
Read this book.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
Al Gore…Al Gore…Al Gore…Al Gore…Al Gore…Al Gore
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
I agree-we should conserve and do what we can to treat the Earth well because it is a gift to us from God. Period. End of story.
J
JimG
Guest
Of course. The big debate occurs over what exactly that means in practice, especially in terms of taxation and federal spending.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As Catholics, it is incumbent on us to consider our stewardship of the earth. There are many ways in which we can view our record negatively, and many in which we can view it positively. I know, for example, that in the area in which I live, the ecology has improved tremendously from what it was when I was a child. Peoples’ care for the earth; their whole attitude has changed greatly in that regard. I don’t think too many people would argue with the general proposition. I really don’t.
But it isn’t difficult to become cynical about politicians’ use of various issues, particularly ecological ones, when their records have not been all that good. It is especially true when a man like Al Gore for example, makes himself the “poster child” for global warming. People did not seek him out in that respect, he thrust himself to the limelight. And, there is no question that he does not practice what he preaches. His energy use is enormous. So, does he believe his own rhetoric? Well, he receives, as a “perk” of his own company, “carbon credits” that supposedly make up for it; credits he sells to others. And how does he get those credits? By raising non-food trees on farmland in South America; land that people could live on.
So that’s why people “drag” Al Gore into this issue. He has done much to make himself the centerpiece of it.
And, in the conversation as a whole, should we not also consider the impact on peoples’ lives when whole segments of energy resources are threatened with being shut down, and when new taxes are being proposed to achieve wealth transfers? I didn’t make any of that up. That’s what is going on, and everybody knows it. The only question is whether somehow people will be worse impacted if we don’t.
As I mentioned before, I maintain some land. Part of it is grassland, and I graze cattle on it. Part of it is woodland, and I maintain healthy stands of native canopy trees and understory there, to produce resources that are valuable to people and wildlife and the environment as a whole. Lots of people do similar things.
I spend a lot of time outdoors, in all kinds of weather,and I know for a fact that the climate, at least here, is not warming. This year, for example, the grass was late and mulberries were suppressed, all because it was colder, longer, than normal. If you’re out all the time, and you pasture cattle and pick mulberries for pies and preserves, you notice things like that. It’s not unusual for peaches to get hit by frost here, but it’s very unusual for apples to get hit, which, this spring, they did. Last summer, there were only five “typically” seasonable warm days here. All the rest were lower than normal. Not one was above normal.
But people like me are told by political people and by people who stand to make money by creating panic, that our senses deceive us; that the grass came on earlier than it did; that the mulberries and peaches and apples did not get hit by frost, and that last summer was hotter than ever. We’re told that our electricity and our diesel fuel must be taxed more heavily because it was really warmer than we experienced ourselves. I find that demeaning and dehumanizing.
I certainly don’t mind discussing stewardship in what I believe is a truly Catholic sense. I don’t. Ikind of enjoy it, actually. Had a very nice (and for me, educational) conversation with a fellow right here on CAF about silvopasture creation. But that doesn’t mean I have to take a political stand that I don’t believe.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
That sounds good to me. Like I said before, I am so sick of people immediately attacking anyone that brings up global warming as being a left wing liberal that needs to be Hannitized!
I think there is global warming going on myself. I do not think it is the dire situation that a lot of people believe it to be though. I do worry that a lot of people are having a knee jerk reaction to the situation and if we are not careful we could make some changes that are going to hurt a lot of people, which I thing the Bishops letter brings up.
Here a a couple of reasons I would like to go “green”
I think there is global warming going on myself. I do not think it is the dire situation that a lot of people believe it to be though. I do worry that a lot of people are having a knee jerk reaction to the situation and if we are not careful we could make some changes that are going to hurt a lot of people, which I thing the Bishops letter brings up.
Here a a couple of reasons I would like to go “green”
- Less dependent on foreign oil
- Create jobs.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
That sounds good to me. Like I said before, I am so sick of people immediately attacking anyone that brings up global warming as being a left wing liberal that needs to be Hannitized!
I think there is global warming going on myself. I do not think it is the dire situation that a lot of people believe it to be though. I do worry that a lot of people are having a knee jerk reaction to the situation and if we are not careful we could make some changes that are going to hurt a lot of people, which I thing the Bishops letter brings up.
Here a a couple of reasons I would like to go “green”
We use to be a country that made things. This could be our opportunity to get out front with green technology manufacturing and development. The reason I say that is because whether you believe in it our not this country and the world are going this direction. We can either fight it or get out in front of it. I myself would like to see us go more nuclear until we figure out some better solution.
- Less dependent on foreign oil
- Create jobs.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I agree with wind, nuclear, solar; just about anything anybody can come up with. But at the same time, shutting down coal fired electricity plants is not something I go for. Lots of our electricityhere comes from coal-fired plants in Kansas. Why make peoples’ lives miserable by shutting them down and costing people their jobs. I’ll be okay. I have all the wood in the world to burn if I need to. But there are lots of people who depend on those plants totally.That sounds good to me. Like I said before, I am so sick of people immediately attacking anyone that brings up global warming as being a left wing liberal that needs to be Hannitized!
I think there is global warming going on myself. I do not think it is the dire situation that a lot of people believe it to be though. I do worry that a lot of people are having a knee jerk reaction to the situation and if we are not careful we could make some changes that are going to hurt a lot of people, which I thing the Bishops letter brings up.
Here a a couple of reasons I would like to go “green”
We use to be a country that made things. This could be our opportunity to get out front with green technology manufacturing and development. The reason I say that is because whether you believe in it our not this country and the world are going this direction. We can either fight it or get out in front of it. I myself would like to see us go more nuclear until we figure out some better solution.
- Less dependent on foreign oil
- Create jobs.
I’m sure some of the older coal mines there were nasty and need reclamation. But I’ll also say they have converted some of the old strip mines into classic tallgrass prairie after they were through with them. Some of that is truly wonderful to behold.
K
kennewickmike
Guest
I agree. We should not loose our heads and end up hurting a lot of people to help the environment. Would you be against a nuclear plant in Kansas to take the place of those coal fired plants. My reasoning is that it would be cleaner and create jobs. Hopefully we will not need nuclear one day but until then I prefer it over it over coal.
Not sure if windmills are the answer for the major power supply the population needs yet. We have windmill farms all around where I live and they only offer a fraction of what we need and we are a medium sized community.
- Status