Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Ridgerunner]

If some has a way to address this without hurting people and upsetting their lives I’d like to see it. That means whatever it is has to not increase utility rates, increase gas prices or the affordability of OWNING a car. I see them going after thos first before anything else.

My jaw dropped when I read about the “cash for clunkers” program. If somebody buys a NEW car and turns in a car that gets 18 mpg or less, and if that car is shredded, the buyer will get a tax credit.

Who does this government think buys the “clunkers”? Poor people do. So, people who can afford new cars anyway (and they’re mighty pricey) get money from the government, and people who can only afford old cars get to try to find one that didn’t get shredded, and whose price will be higher because a lot of them were destroyed.

But I guess maybe it will help the UAW, which donated millions to the Obama campaign. So I guess it’s all right.

 

[aspawloski4th]

My jaw dropped when I read about the “cash for clunkers” program. If somebody buys a NEW car and turns in a car that gets 18 mpg or less, and if that car is shredded, the buyer will get a tax credit.

Who does this government think buys the “clunkers”? Poor people do. So, people who can afford new cars anyway (and they’re mighty pricey) get money from the government, and people who can only afford old cars get to try to find one that didn’t get shredded, and whose price will be higher because a lot of them were destroyed.

But I guess maybe it will help the UAW, which donated millions to the Obama campaign. So I guess it’s all right.

Iv’e always been poor. My way of dealing with bad gas milage in the days of the carbarator was rebuild it and lean it out. I had my 200 dollar 1966 Chrysler Newport get 17 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway after the rebuild and a full tuneup. Now My 1996 Dodge in Intrepid gets 16 in the city and 25 mpg on the highway with a v6 and I can’t do didley sqat to improve it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Iv’e always been poor. My way of dealing with bad gas milage in the days of the carbarator was rebuild it and lean it out. I had my 200 dollar 1966 Chrysler Newport get 17 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway after the rebuild and a full tuneup. Now My 1996 Dodge in Intrepid gets 16 in the city and 25 mpg on the highway with a v6 and I can’t do didley sqat to improve it.

Most people wouldn’t think of me as “poor”, but for the life of me it has always seemed so. Of course, I have put four children through college and graduate school. That’ll break your back, financially, no matter what. But I wasn’t planning on living forever anyway.

I never buy new cars either. They say you can now get a “better deal” on a new car than a used one, and when you consider the likely mileage remaining and all, I suppose it’s so. But a whole lot of that depends on how you treat a car and just plain luck. But somebody has to pay for that “new smell” of every car, and it ain’t going to be me.

I’ll tell you what my favorite is, though; my 1978 Chevrolet pickup. I don’t know what kind of mileage I get with that 350 engine. But those trucks are spacious under the hood and no electronics. Easy and cheap to work on. You just keep replacing parts forever if something goes bad, as long as you don’t wreck it. I really do wish cars were like that.

Trying to stay on topic, I’ll say that probably my pickup contributes quite a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere, but unless I wreck it, it’ll never clutter up the landscape in a salvage yard as long as I’m alive.

 

[4elise]

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.

usccb.org/cchd/acorn-faq.shtml - the USCCB evaluated the actions of ACORN and based on actions - or lack of actions - made prudent changes in their position.

I have found that statements that come out from the USCCB are universally prudent - and this is why when they speak on issues of global climate change I believe it has more weight and value because where they put the emphasis on the needs to protect the needs of the poor.

 

[4elise]

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.

Given your low opinion of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, do you find issues in continuing to practice as a Catholic?

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.

Given the overwhelming number of scientists who do accept global climate change as FACT - and also the FACT that there is an anthropogenic reason I think that the Church is leading us to consider the needs of the poor in any actions that will be taken to address this - this is where we have prudent action recommended and where the discussion should focus - *but while there are people who refuse to accept the science the discussion is hindered on what should be done keeping the needs of EVERYONE - especially the most vulnerable at the heart of the discussion. *

 

[4elise]

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.

 

[Newbie2]

“Do what we can” is an awfully loaded statement.

I can think of a dozen things right off the top of my head that we “could” do to help protect and preserve the environment. But as been said, or at least eluded to is that we need to be careful not to waste resourses or do something stupid in the name of “doing what we can” to fulfill our stewardship duties.

I recently read an article in a magazine about how seeding the ocean with a certain type of algae would “trap a significant amount of carbon”, thereby helping to reverse “global warming”. OK, we ***could ***do that. But in the process, we could make all of the west coastline a stinking green muck, making the waterfront a very unpleasant place to visit. It could also significantly change the ecosystem, killing off indiginous species of sea plants and animals.

I’ve read other wacky ideas that we “could” do as well.

It’s such a general statement that it’s hard to disagree with, like “Mean people s**k”. It doesn’t say what we should actually do to prevent mean people from being mean.

 

[Brendan]

Given your low opinion of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, do you find issues in continuing to practice as a Catholic?

Given the overwhelming number of scientists who do accept global climate change as FACT - and also the FACT that there is an anthropogenic reason I think that the Church is leading us to consider the needs of the poor in any actions that will be taken to address this - this is where we have prudent action recommended and where the discussion should focus - *but while there are people who refuse to accept the science the discussion is hindered on what should be done keeping the needs of EVERYONE - especially the most vulnerable at the heart of the discussion. *

Here is an article about 31,000 scientists who signed a petition presented to Congress that stated

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The scientists have some pretty good credentials, so this ‘global warming’ discussion is by no means over, let alone determining what a correct ‘response’ would be.

tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

There is really no evidence what so ever that shows causality between human generated activity and climate change.

The Russian Science Academy, for example, has been noting an increase in Solar output for the last 14 years. Which would also go a long way in explaining the global warming on Mars too

Take a look at this news series

youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ (part 1 of 8)

 

[4elise]

Here is an article about 31,000 scientists who signed a petition presented to Congress that stated

“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The scientists have some pretty good credentials, so this ‘global warming’ discussion is by no means over, let alone determining what a correct ‘response’ would be.
tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

There is really no evidence what so ever that shows causality between human generated activity and climate change.
The Russian Science Academy, for example, has been noting an increase in Solar output for the last 14 years. Which would also go a long way in explaining the global warming on Mars too Take a look at this news series
youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ (part 1 of 8)

and here is an article for you…
cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

 

[4elise]

“Do what we can” is an awfully loaded statement.

I can think of a dozen things right off the top of my head that we “could” do to help protect and preserve the environment. But as been said, or at least eluded to is that we need to be careful not to waste resourses or do something stupid in the name of “doing what we can” to fulfill our stewardship duties.

I recently read an article in a magazine about how seeding the ocean with a certain type of algae would “trap a significant amount of carbon”, thereby helping to reverse “global warming”. OK, we ***could ***do that. But in the process, we could make all of the west coastline a stinking green muck, making the waterfront a very unpleasant place to visit. It could also significantly change the ecosystem, killing off indiginous species of sea plants and animals.

I’ve read other wacky ideas that we “could” do as well.

It’s such a general statement that it’s hard to disagree with, like “Mean people s**k”. It doesn’t say what we should actually do to prevent mean people from being mean.

Kind of like planting kudzu to stop soil erosion huh?
But that is the point of the original post that the direction of the USCCB leads us to prudent action keeping the needs of the poor at the heart of the issues… perhaps you could start a thread (if you think man’s actions are impacting global climate change) and a discussion could follow on what actions people can take / should take / shouldn’t take…

 

[Brendan]

and here is an article for you…
cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

But if you watched the links I provided, you will see that “Global Warming” is not denied, but that it is something that occurs naturally and has happened at several points in human history ( such as the Medieval Warming period, when Greenland was actually green )

And as I mentioned in my previous post, the Russian Science Academy has noted that solar output has risen over pretty much the exact same timeframe that surface temps have risen.

 

[4elise]

But if you watched the links I provided, you will see that “Global Warming” is not denied, but that it is something that occurs naturally and has happened at several points in human history ( such as the Medieval Warming period, when Greenland was actually green )

And as I mentioned in my previous post, the Russian Science Academy has noted that solar output has risen over pretty much the exact same timeframe that surface temps have risen.

boingboing.net/2009/02/04/top-independent-peer.html

The science that is peer reviewed agrees that (1) global climate change is real (2) there is an anthropogenic factor

There are a handful ‘scientists’ who do not agree with these two facts, however they are in the most extreme minority AND have not had their ‘science’ peer reviewed. This is one of the points where the division occurs.

When people are paranoid that the government has made this all up - or that the science is being manipulated for someone’s financial advancement it keeps us from focusing on what the important issue we can be standing for - insuring that the steps taken to address the climate change keep the needs of the poor and vulnerable at the heart of the discussion and actions.

 

[Brendan]

boingboing.net/2009/02/04/top-independent-peer.html

The science that is peer reviewed agrees that (1) global climate change is real (2) there is an anthropogenic factor .

Not quite true.

Here is a peer reviewed study on the human effects on climate that determined that it was negligable

Abstract The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/

And here is another showing that the greenhouse effects of CO2 used in many of the climate models does not correspond with the actual physics of the compound

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

And finally, a (again peer reviewed) study that shows of the various climate changes that have occured over the last 14,000 years have been driven by solar changes, NOT CO2 levels.

nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html

So given that all of these are peer reviewed, can you elaborate more on your statement here:

There are a handful ‘scientists’ who do not agree with these two facts, however they are in the most extreme minority AND have not had their ‘science’ peer reviewed. This is one of the points where the division occurs.

 

[4elise]

So given that all of these are peer reviewed, can you elaborate more on your statement here:

Public release date: 19-Jan-2009
FROM eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

“The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” he said. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

 

[4elise]

this was a good coverage on th way global climate change deniers use ‘peer review’ … mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1521

My biggest concern is that by keeping our heads in the sand because we associate climate change action with someone we don’t like and therefore don’t believe (read Al Gore I’m guessing) – we then keep from taking action that could have a positive impact - ***or worse ***- because we aren’t part of the discussion on WHAT should be done - our voice (which should be echoing the position of the USCCB to keep the needs of the poor and most vulnerable at the heart) is silenced…

 

[Newbie2]

Kind of like planting kudzu to stop soil erosion huh?
But that is the point of the original post that the direction of the USCCB leads us to prudent action keeping the needs of the poor at the heart of the issues… perhaps you could start a thread (if you think man’s actions are impacting global climate change) and a discussion could follow on what actions people can take / should take / shouldn’t take…

That might get WAY political… Personally, I don’t think we people can do much in terms of positively or negatively affecting the earth’s climate as a whole.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In the off chance that some of the readers of this thread are new to the climate change debate …[this must be the 20th time someone has started a thread on global warming] … and has not heard all the arguments before, I suggest doing a search for global warming here at CAF.

One of the more interesting Web sites is www.wattsupwiththat.com

I’ll post others, but wattsupwiththat.com is very useful.

Here is a bunch more:

urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=larry&SubID=163

sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2008/november/plimer/player.html

surfacestations.org/

climateaudit.org/

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/

www.sepp.org

www.oism.org

Rather than boring readers with a play by play recitation, just click on each one and enjoy the treasures.

I could post 50 more, easily.

The other day, I was on the phone with someone who needed resources on this subject and, surprisingly, there are still some folks who don’t know about these references.

Anyway, enjoy them.

 

[4elise]

That might get WAY political… Personally, I don’t think we people can do much in terms of positively or negatively affecting the earth’s climate as a whole.

I think IF one accepts that global climate change is real AND there are man made factors - there are indeed things that can be done both positive and negative.

 

[4elise]

In the off chance that some of the readers of this thread are new to the climate change debate …[this must be the 20th time someone has started a thread on global warming] … and has not heard all the arguments before, I suggest doing a search for global warming here at CAF.

I could post 50 more, easily.

The other day, I was on the phone with someone who needed resources on this subject and, surprisingly, there are still some folks who don’t know about these references.

Anyway, enjoy them.

I know that here are many web sites that are global climate change deniers - and there have been MANY threads on this topic here at CAF — but since this is Catholic Answers Forum - I thought this would be a good thread since **the original post is what is coming from the Catholic church on the topic - **

There are (I assume) many reasons people feel the need to refute the science - and therefore believe the web sites and blogs that support their belief with other ‘science’ — but the knee jerk reaction to say ‘it isn’t so’ keeps many from engaging in what the Catholic church is calling for - keeping the needs of the poor and vulnerable at the heart of the discussion.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I think IF one accepts that global climate change is real AND there are man made factors - there are indeed things that can be done both positive and negative.

Lomborg has an outstanding discussion of various costs and benefits.

amazon.com/gp/product/030738652X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=304485901&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0307266923&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0JFH4MW5NFY0AF7Q3FWN

Even easier: here is Lomborg discussing his ideas on BookTV; just click and watch.

booktv.org/program.aspx?ID=8614&SN=