Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4elise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4elise said:
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.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Or you can subscribe to the philosophy that life is all about YOU (the individual), and continue on with your life doing whatever you do FOR YOU, for your comfort, for your pleasure, for your convenience–because LIFE is all in your head, and you have no obligation to future generations or to the global care of the planet.

Yah–Life is all about me–who cares about rain forests–never seen one–couldn’t find one if I had a map–car emissions???–can’t really see them with the naked eye–no way am I gonna ride a mountain bike in the snow…

Sorry, feeling satirical today…
 
mkingdomlvr said:
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.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Or you could read Lomborg.
 
If one wishes to keep the needs of the poor and vulnerable at the heart of the discussion, then one would certainly wish to avoid any drastic governmental actions that could make their situation worse. Governmental actions that increase taxes or artificially increase energy costs or cause economic recession would hurt the poor first and foremost. The physicians’ motto “first, do no harm,” applies here.
 
4elise said:
this was a good coverage on th way global climate change deniers use ‘peer review’ … mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1521
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this link applies to the links that I provided. None of them are associated with this Marc Morano person that your link refers to.

And the only other point that was not actually an ad-hominum attack was to state that this Marc person did not provide actual data, which was clearly not the case in the links I provided.

They are peer reviewed papers from scientific journals and\or well know universities.

I would also point out that one of the papers address a point your own weblink described as a legitimate matter of debate, namely the extent of anthropogenic causes for global warming.

One of those showed that the extent of human involvement is minimal. Ergo, from a Catholic perspective, there is little for us to actually do.
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) –
Click to expand...
Not the case here, I’m an engineer and well familiar with the scientific method. I no more have emotional considerations for this issue and Al Gore than I do over metallurgy and Andrew Carnegie.

Which brings me to another point; I deal with computer models every day. If I am working on a model that involves a particular alloy, and the metallurgist comes along and tells me the properties of an alloy that I am assuming in my model are wrong, I change them and re run the numbers.

In one of the papers I linked to was from a set of Atmospheric Physicists, who are pretty much stating that the properties of CO2 that the Climatologists are assuming in their models is incorrect. The correct thing, of course, would be for the Climatologists to change their model assumptions and re-run the numbers. I would be very interested in seeing those revised estimates.
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…
Click to expand...
I am certainly very much interested in the welfare of the poor, that is why I am so keen on determining EXACTLY what programs would most benefit them.

Perhaps it would make better sense to industrialize them so that they can provide well paying jobs, and modern farm equipment so that they could grow food more readily. Such a plan is often opposed by those who see anthropogenic causes of global climate change.

So
 
Brendan said:
I fail to see how this link applies to the links that I provided.
Click to expand...
showing how peer review can done to achieve the wiff of validity, not specific to your article but the topic… other climate change deniers
Brendan said:
I would also point out that one of the papers address a point your own weblink described as a legitimate matter of debate, namely the extent of anthropogenic causes for global warming.

One of those showed that the extent of human involvement is minimal. Ergo, from a Catholic perspective, there is little for us to actually do.
Click to expand...
FROM RESOURCES in the original post: catholicclimatecovenant.org/w…09/04/faq2.pdf

**A Catholic Approach to Climate Change
Question and Answer Resource **

**Don’t scientists disagree about climate change? **
The bishops, since their 2001 statement, have relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an authority on this issue. The IPCC is made up of thousands of scientists from hundreds of nations and issues reports every few years. **Their latest report (2007) says that climate change is occurring and one of the definitive causes is human activities. **The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has issued numerous consensus statements on climate change as well. The debate now focuses more on what to do about climate change and the economic, political, social and cultural costs of proposed actions or of inaction.

**
How can human activity be the cause of current climate change when there have always been natural variations and cycles in the climate? **
Past variations in climate were most often related to changes in the composition of gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) just as is the case today. The higher the CO2 levels, the warmer the atmosphere. There is some uncertainty about what caused those past fluctuations in CO2 levels. But by and large, they happened over very long periods of time. What is unique about the current situation, is that levels of CO2 and some other polluting gases are rising in a very short
period of time: significant, measurable increases over decades, not over thousands of years. According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 278 parts per million (ppm). That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D. ** Atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased to 382 ppm (2008), an increase of 37% due primarily to human activities.** The IPCC projects that levels could reach 450 ppm by 2050 driven by current and future use of fossil fuels, particularly by large developing nations.

Surely communities of faith have no role in such public policy issues as climate change. What about separation of church and state?
Climate change is a public policy issue because it impacts the common good. Climate change will require an honest examination of society’s energy, transportation, and consumption patterns. Some individuals, businesses and politicians will resist an examination and resultant changes because of the benefits they receive now in the current energy configuration. However, we are a community of faith that cannot stand by while vulnerable people and God’s creation suffers. We must address
climate change because, for us, it is more than a political or scientific or ecological issue. **It is a spiritual, ethical and moral issue. **

**What can I do? **
Join with us to support The Catholic Climate Covenant: The St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor. This new and ambitious effort encourages Catholic individuals, parish- es, schools, religious communities, dioceses and other Catholic organizations to commit them- selves to a five-point St. Francis Pledge:
  1. pray and reflect on the duty to care for God’s creation and protect the poor and vulnerable;
  2. learn about and educate others on the moral dimensions of climate change;
  3. assess our participation-as individuals and organizations-in contributing to climate change;
  4. act to change our choices and behaviors contributing to climate change and; and
  5. advocate Catholic principles and priorities in climate change discussions and
    decisions, especially as they impact the poor and vulnerable.
You apparently agree with the handful of people who do not accept this. I do believe that you are a person of good will who does have the needs of the poor in your heart - I am looking to the leadership of the Catholic Church on this topic and am glad that they are speaking out - quoting the science of the IPCC which agrees that global climate change is happening and our actions are impacting it - therefore our actions can make a difference - and we need to be advocates for the most vulnerable. Peace
 
4elise said:
showing how peer review can done to achieve the wiff of validity, not specific to your article but the topic… other climate change deniers
Click to expand...
So what problems specifically do you have with the reports I listed? If you are rejecting them for no other reason that they do not agree with your premise, that would be a false application of the scientific method.

FROM RESOURCES in the original post: catholicclimatecovenant.org/w…09/04/faq2.pdf

**A Catholic Approach to Climate Change
Question and Answer Resource **

**Don’t scientists disagree about climate change? **
The bishops, since their 2001 statement, have relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an authority on this issue. The IPCC is made up of thousands of scientists from hundreds of nations and issues reports every few years. Their latest report (2007) says that climate change is occurring and one of the definitive causes is human activities.

Note the date of the last IPCC report, 2007. The article on the limited effects of CO2 on global warming is dated Mar 4, 2009.

So clearly the IPCC report is not up on the latest research on the matter.

Which is why I am so interested in seeing the climatologists rerun their model numbers based on this new research.
 
One of the key discussion points that needs to be further explored is that IPCC has DELIBERATELY IGNORED OR DISREGARDED NATURAL CAUSES of climate change.

IPCC has focused entirely on man-made causes, which are a small, tiny, microscopic aspect of climate change and ignored all natural causes of climate change.

And naturally, the media headlines take up the IPCC trumpet call and amplify what IPCC has reported.

Very important to expose IPCC for the false focus that it has provided.

Here is just one article (recent) and it is important for everyone to see how IPCC has bent and twisted the truth.

dakotavoice.com/2009/06/arctic-scientist-ipcc-ignores-natural-causes-of-global-warming/

Important to take this aspect and follow it where it goes.
 
The other discussion point is that there are not “thousands of IPCC scientists”.

There were 2500 REVIEWERS. However, IPCC then lied and twisted and distorted the “review” aspect. That particular IPCC scientific fraud also needs to be exposed to the light of day. If you search you will find numerous cases in which some of the reviewers took objection to the way their reviews were misused by IPCC. And then IPCC either ignored or lied about the objections.

Here is just one article about this other aspect of the fraudulent IPCC approach to the man-made / anthropogenic global warming / climate change hoax.

brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/who_are_the_ipc.html

If you search, you will find many more such articles and letters.

But you have to search because the main stream media has no interest in exposing fraudulent aspects of the headline-producing hoax. Saying that climate change is natural and normal and that a one degree increase in temperature would increase food supply does not create the crisis/ chicken little headlines that sell newspapers.

The news media wants to create alarmism.

Saying that everything is cool and to relax does not generate the adrenalin that is created by getting everyone all churned up.

Newsies want to seem important and generating alarmist headlines is one way of doing that.
 
Al_Masetti said:
One of the key discussion points that needs to be further explored is that IPCC has DELIBERATELY IGNORED OR DISREGARDED NATURAL CAUSES of climate change.

IPCC has focused entirely on man-made causes, which are a small, tiny, microscopic aspect of climate change and ignored all natural causes of climate change.

And naturally, the media headlines take up the IPCC trumpet call and amplify what IPCC has reported.

Very important to expose IPCC for the false focus that it has provided.

Here is just one article (recent) and it is important for everyone to see how IPCC has bent and twisted the truth.

dakotavoice.com/2009/06/arctic-scientist-ipcc-ignores-natural-causes-of-global-warming/

Important to take this aspect and follow it where it goes.
Click to expand...
Ok I was trying to avoid this thread but you have made this claim about the ipcc ignoring natural causes before. And as before I will once again show that is little more then a lie,

First an entire section of the report was dedicated to Paleoclimate. ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf and in here as well it talks about solar variation and volcanic activity.

As for the claims that article makes I think these links address the little ice age pretty well. scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m9
scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/12/we-are-just-recovering-from-lia.php

As for the temperature increased and or decreased since 2000… realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

This first link helps show how looking at such short time periods is flawed.

bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/

This one helps explain why even if it was true that air temperatures have been decreasing why it matters little. \
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Again, it is sheer human arrogance to assume we even can change the climate, or that you in throwing away your poor little paper towel have destroyed ‘the environment.’

Climate-change hysteria has nothing to do with good stewardship and everything to do with government control where it has no business doing so.
 
The IPCC can make all the claims it wants to. Here is a paper from someone who was one of the IPCC reviewers.

Read it, please.

john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Here is another source; [reads a bit choppy; may have been machine edited]:

urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=17238

Read about what the IPCC said on paleoclimate:

climateaudit.org/?p=640

Science demands transparency and openness. IPCC has been the exact opposite.

I recommend that readers here pursue further examples of criticism of the IPCC work. Not hard to do. Just word up some search criteria “criticisms of IPCC” [for example] … try different variations … and put them into Google.

Visit sites such as www.junkscience.com and www.sepp.org and scroll around in there. Visit www.wattsupwiththat.com

The point is that all science demands free and open exchange of ideas. All science.

So, let the critics be heard.

And let the advocates of IPCC not be defensive.

UNLESS, of course, the discussion is about politics and not about science.
 
Catholics should know better than to fall for the Global Warming or Global Climate Change hoax. These lies pare being perpetuated by politicians who are grabbing for power.

Remember Y2K?
 
abukamoon said:
Catholics should know better than to fall for the Global Warming or Global Climate Change hoax. These lies pare being perpetuated by politicians who are grabbing for power.

Remember Y2K?
Click to expand...
The Bishops did not put out anything saying the world was going to end in Y2K —
The Bishops have put out information on Global Climate Change and what we should consider doing as to put our faith into action.
 
4elise said:
The Bishops did not put out anything saying the world was going to end in Y2K —
The Bishops have put out information on Global Climate Change and what we should consider doing as to put our faith into action.
Click to expand...
My faith is in action. I have faith that God is going keep the climate in such a way that the Earth is still inhabitable by us.
 
Al_Masetti said:
The IPCC can make all the claims it wants to. Here is a paper from someone who was one of the IPCC reviewers.

Read it, please.

john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Here is another source; [reads a bit choppy; may have been machine edited]:

urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=17238

Read about what the IPCC said on paleoclimate:

climateaudit.org/?p=640

Science demands transparency and openness. IPCC has been the exact opposite.

I recommend that readers here pursue further examples of criticism of the IPCC work. Not hard to do. Just word up some search criteria “criticisms of IPCC” [for example] … try different variations … and put them into Google.

Visit sites such as www.junkscience.com and www.sepp.org and scroll around in there. Visit www.wattsupwiththat.com

The point is that all science demands free and open exchange of ideas. All science.

So, let the critics be heard.

And let the advocates of IPCC not be defensive.

UNLESS, of course, the discussion is about politics and not about science.
Click to expand...
Al, I read this stuff - and I just don’t believe it - you read the stuff from the IPCC and you don’t believe it - I don’t think there will be any movement for me or you toward the other’s position because we disagree on the sources.

What I see, and posted in the original post is what our Catholic Church is pointing us to ---- to always advocate that action recommended and taken has the needs of the poor at the heart ------ my point, over and over here has been if we bury our heads in the sand, and we deny that it is happening, we lose the voice to advocate for the poor - we become irrelevant in the dialogue - does that make any sense to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top