Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[aspawloski4th]

So again, what the Church is putting out there is of no interest to you then?

Iv’e said it a bunch of times, and I’ll remind you as well as everyone else here. I’m a degreed Meteorologist and yes I have a good amount to course work in climatology. There is no signiificant global warmingf. Since the mid 20th century the sounther hemisphere has warmed 1 dgree and the northern hemisphere( where all the CO2should be) has cooled 2 degrees for a net 1 degree cooling. That was actually in a test question in a climatology course I took at Central Michigan University, as tought my professor Burton Nelson. To tell the truth anything one can comeupo with to fight this socalled global warming will hurt the poor wheter it be directly or indirectly.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’d rather put my Catholic faith to work fighting moral pollution.

 

[Tanner9188]

I receive this e-mail and thought it was such a comprehensive resource I wanted to share it:

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change - Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

New Reports Show “Climate Gap”
June 17, 2009 Update

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change & U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Disappointed with American Clean Energy and Security Act
As you know, the House is nearing passage of the (HR 2454). But despite the efforts of the faith community and many of you, funding levels for international adaptation in the legislation remain woefully inadequate. The funding begins too low (less than $1 billion) with too-slow increases in the coming years. As the measure goes to the House floor as early as next week, faith leaders will continue to look for champions to carry forth this message.

In the meantime, please continue to call your U.S. Representative (202-224-3121) and urge that the funding level for international adaptation rise to at least $3.5 billion and that this level accelerate at a much faster rate. See the latest letter from the USCCB on this issue here. usccb.org/sdwp/2009-05-18-ltr-crs-usccb-to-committee-on-energy-commerce.pdf

“The Climate Gap” Highlights Inequalities of Climate Change
The University of Southern California Center for Sustainable Cities issued a report last month that reveals the sometimes hidden and often unequal impact climate change is expected to have on people of color and the poor in the United States. “The Climate Gap: Inequalities in How Climate Change Hurts Americans & How to Close the Gap” connects the dots between research on heat waves, air quality, and other challenges associated with climate change. The report explores how we might best combine efforts to both solve climate change and close the Climate Gap. Although the report focuses on California’s global warming policy, it is applicable nationally. The report also has an analysis of the federal-level American Clean Energy Security Act.
Download the report here. college.usc.edu/geography/ESPE/perepub.html

Tough Questions about Climate Change
As the political debate heats up in Congress about climate change, those in the Catholic Church advocating on behalf of poor people at home and abroad in climate change legislation and action are receiving more questions about the Church’s position on climate change, climate science, and why the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change is involved in this issue. In order to address some of these questions and to assist supporters in responding, the “Frequently Asked Questions” page is posted on the Catholic Climate Covenant website here. catholicclimatecovenant.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

You can also find a more detailed handout “A Catholic Approach to Climate Change Question and Answer Resource” catholicclimatecovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/faq2.pdf which includes answers to such questions as: “What is climate change?” “Why should we be concerned about climate change?” “What is the Catholic Bishops position on climate change?” And “What is the scientific evidence for climate change?”

International Catholic Networks Support Adaptation Assistance from Wealthier Countries
CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, the largest networks (along with Catholic Relief Services) of Catholic development and relief agencies in the world came together in Lilongwe, Malawi, to send a message to the ongoing UN climate negotiations in Bonn in Germany. (The negotiations in Bonn are leading to the global summit in Copenhagen at the end of this year where world leaders will gather to seek new climate agreement to replace the current Kyoto Protocol.) In the statement, they set out their demands for an effective and just new global climate change agreement. They highlighted the need for urgent action on technologies that are key for adapting to climate change, reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development.

Here is an excerpt:
We have already endangered the planet and it is affecting us all. We must act now to reduce emission levels. Annex 1 [industrialized] countries need to collectively cut their emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Each polluting country must take its responsibility and take serious steps to reduce its carbon emissions, without relying on offsetting in developing countries. It is the most vulnerable people in the poorest countries who are worst impacted by global warming. Annex 1 countries must respond by providing the necessary funding and the technology required for them to adapt. They must also be willing to make life-style changes.
See the whole statement here. cidse.org/Area_of_work/Climate_change/?id=1227

Climate change is God’s responsibility and believe me when I say when Jesus comes back; they we need a new definition for the world climate change. We should be good stewards, but global warming, now called climate change, is a joke on tax payers. God gave us the earth and told man to “subdue” it. Genesis. What is a climatologist? A glorified meteorologist! They can’t even get the weather correct more than a day or two out, much less expand it to the entire earth. It’s about money, not science. Wake up America!

 

[Calliso]

Iv’e said it a bunch of times, and I’ll remind you as well as everyone else here. I’m a degreed Meteorologist and yes I have a good amount to course work in climatology. There is no signiificant global warmingf. Since the mid 20th century the sounther hemisphere has warmed 1 dgree and the northern hemisphere( where all the CO2should be) has cooled 2 degrees for a net 1 degree cooling. That was actually in a test question in a climatology course I took at Central Michigan University, as tought my professor Burton Nelson. To tell the truth anything one can comeupo with to fight this socalled global warming will hurt the poor wheter it be directly or indirectly.

Ummm what cooling? Remember we have to look at long term trends here. cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

And while it should be noted as this graph shows that the southern hemisphere isn;t warming up at the same rate as the northern hemisphere it should also be noted that the southern hemisphere has a lot less land mass and much more ocean then the northern hemisphere.

Also while it is true the world as a whole has warmed up only about a degree farenheit though it should be noted that on a smaller non global scale that degree changes that is still pretty significant especially when you consider time scales. Over thousands or millions of years no big deal. Over a 100 years that is basically an instant in geological time.

 

[Calliso]

And the people that say it’;s just about money. So you are saying that the major or all the major scientific organizations on the earth that say the earth is warming and humanity is likely contributing are all in it for the money?

Anyway people should read these links…greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html

Also about predicting weather versus predicting climate. skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm once again people need to realize climate and weather are not the exact same thing.

 

[4elise]

And the people that say it’;s just about money. So you are saying that the major or all the major scientific organizations on the earth that say the earth is warming and humanity is likely contributing are all in it for the money?

Anyway people should read these links…greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-conspiracy-theories-more-paranoid-than-thou/

logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html

Also about predicting weather versus predicting climate. skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm once again people need to realize climate and weather are not the exact same thing.

Always so grateful when you weigh in - Calliso! It is disheartening to think that people come here and can find misinformation - thanks!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

And the people that say it’;s just about money. So you are saying that the major or all the major scientific organizations on the earth that say the earth is warming and humanity is likely contributing are all in it for the money?

Yes.

And I would remind you the assertion that ALL the major scientific organizations on earth, OR all scientists, agree on climate-change hysteria, is a grave mis-statement.

Only those approved by the state media, or in competition for FUNDING, continue to do so—for the rewards they receive.

Once again, I prefer to use my Catholic faith to fight the far more deadly reality of moral pollution.

 

[Calliso]

More on this concenssus here. Oh and I find it hilarious that people think all the scientists and what not in these organizations are obviously just in it for the money. But clearly the small handful of scientists that donlt think humans have anything to do with global warming clearly have no motivation for money at all. Right…yeah I believe that. cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/

But yeah plain and simple these money arguments are just silly. I think deniers make them simply because they really donlt have anything else to go on.

 

[Joe_5859]

I receive this e-mail and thought it was such a comprehensive resource I wanted to share it:

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change - Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

New Reports Show “Climate Gap”
June 17, 2009 Update

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change & U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Disappointed with American Clean Energy and Security Act
As you know, the House is nearing passage of the (HR 2454). But despite the efforts of the faith community and many of you, funding levels for international adaptation in the legislation remain woefully inadequate. The funding begins too low (less than $1 billion) with too-slow increases in the coming years. As the measure goes to the House floor as early as next week, faith leaders will continue to look for champions to carry forth this message.

In the meantime, please continue to call your U.S. Representative (202-224-3121) and urge that the funding level for international adaptation rise to at least $3.5 billion and that this level accelerate at a much faster rate. See the latest letter from the USCCB on this issue here. usccb.org/sdwp/2009-05-18-ltr-crs-usccb-to-committee-on-energy-commerce.pdf

Just to clarify (as I don’t believe it has been brought up yet), we need to look at what this letter is and what it is not. This is a joint letter from two particular offices in the USCCB: The Office of International Justice and Peace (which falls under the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development) and Catholic Relief Services (which is more of a program than an actual department). As such it is signed by the bishop who is the chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, and the lay USCCB staff person who serves as President of CRS. It is not some sort of statement agreed upon unanimously by all U.S. Bishops.

We need to be careful not to conflate every single voice coming out of the USCCB as somehow signifying the voice of the U.S. Bishops as a collective whole. I see this happen a lot (“U.S. Bishops give thumbs up to Golden Compass”, etc.) It’s easy to do as the structure of the USCCB can be very confusing! But we must take care to examine where these letters fall in the realm of authority. In addition, not everything coming out of the USCCB pertains to doctrine. Anything that does pertain to doctrine will get the recognitio of the Holy See before being published (and this letter, obviously, did not).

This particular letter is concerned with a specific policy and is the opinion of the two signatories of the letter (and the offices they represent) as to the best application of the Church’s social teaching in this particular instance. Certainly, no one is arguing over the Church teaching of stewardship over the earth. The debate is over the correct application of that teaching. And good Catholics can disagree over that.

We also need to keep in mind that the science of climatology is not within the purview of the U.S. Bishops or the Church. They rely on the scientists to provide them with reliable information upon which to base their judgments, but there is no guarantee that these scientists are correct, nor are the resulting policy recommendations protected by the charism of infallibility.

Now does all this mean we can just dismiss the letter out-of-hand? No. We should certainly investigate these matters ourselves and take seriously any bishop’s suggestions on the application of Church teaching. But we are not bound by conscience to agree with him in this particular instance.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Just to clarify (as I don’t believe it has been brought up yet), we need to look at what this letter is and what it is not. This is a joint letter from two particular offices in the USCCB: The Office of International Justice and Peace (which falls under the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development) and Catholic Relief Services (which is more of a program than an actual department). As such it is signed by the bishop who is the chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, and the lay USCCB staff person who serves as President of CRS. It is not some sort of statement agreed upon unanimously by all U.S. Bishops.

We need to be careful not to conflate every single voice coming out of the USCCB as somehow signifying the voice of the U.S. Bishops as a collective whole. I see this happen a lot (“U.S. Bishops give thumbs up to Golden Compass”, etc.) It’s easy to do as the structure of the USCCB can be very confusing! But we must take care to examine where these letters fall in the realm of authority. In addition, not everything coming out of the USCCB pertains to doctrine. Anything that does pertain to doctrine will get the recognitio of the Holy See before being published (and this letter, obviously, did not).

This particular letter is concerned with a specific policy and is the opinion of the two signatories of the letter (and the offices they represent) as to the best application of the Church’s social teaching in this particular instance. Certainly, no one is arguing over the Church teaching of stewardship over the earth. The debate is over the correct application of that teaching. And good Catholics can disagree over that.

We also need to keep in mind that the science of climatology is not within the purview of the U.S. Bishops or the Church. They rely on the scientists to provide them with reliable information upon which to base their judgments, but there is no guarantee that these scientists are correct, nor are the resulting policy recommendations protected by the charism of infallibility.

Now does all this mean we can just dismiss the letter out-of-hand? No. We should certainly investigate these matters ourselves and take seriously any bishop’s suggestions on the application of Church teaching. But we are not bound by conscience to agree with him in this particular instance.

I’m a good Catholic and I’m also a dgreed meteorologist. When it comes to climate I’m going with my knowledge, not a false alarm from bishops who think they know more than the likes of me.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m a good Catholic and I’m also a dgreed meteorologist. When it comes to climate I’m going with my knowledge, not a false alarm from bishops who think they know more than the likes of me.

If that’s what you want to do, you won’t hear any argument from me. I’m sure you know far more about the topic than I do. Whether or not global climate change is (a) currently occurring or (b) if occurring, is man-made are questions to be answered by scientists, not theologians. But that doesn’t mean theologians should ignore science. Theologians make use of science all the time in their attempt to apply doctrine to current situations. But their findings can only be as good as the science they are basing it on. If you see problems with the science, then that is a fair criticism to bring to the discussion.

 

[otjm]

Just a couple of random thoughts on the issue of the Church involving itself in science:

There are a series of assumptions re Global Warming (which now, interestingly, is being referred to more and more as Global climate Change):

1. That temperatures are rising all around the globe, as opposed to rising in some areas and not in others;
2. that the rise is attributable to something more than the natural rhythm of weather patterns which have shown temperature rising and temperature cooling over centuries;
3. that reported change is due to human activity, and
4. that change in human activity will stop the trend of change.

It was some time ago, several years, when a scientist in northern Europe suggested that the cycle of change appeared to parallel changes in sun activity. He was widely and loudly dismissed. Since then, more scientists have questions a number of the underlying assumptions. and questioned possible bias in data - time related, area related, etc.

There are now scientists who are insisiting that the data, whether it is accurate or not in and of itself, is inadequate, and specifically pointing out that there is at best minimal data to work with regarding the impact and effects of the oceans and what part they may play in temperature swings due to sun-sourced radiation absorbtion, upwelling and its impact to name just two issues. Coupled with this, some scientists are pointing out that there is no adequate modeling to explain the impact of weather patterns of themselves, and they note that this is particularly an issue given agricultural enterprise, and the amount of water that is applied to agricultural land and its impact through evaporation, the upwelling of the evaporated water, and its effect on the atmosphere.

In short, they are saying that while carbon is being noted as the culprit, there is more carbon and other chemicals released from volcanic activity than from any other source. In short, they are suggesting that a) carbon is not the culprit, and b) if indeed it is having an impact, that man’s ability to reduce carbon output is minimal compared to that generated naturally by nature. They are saying that while there is tremendous talk and political push to reduce carbon output, there is little or no showing that it will have any significant impact.

Which leads to this: The Church - the bishops as leaders - are to lead the laity in matters religious; if they convey the Gospel truths and Truth as is their charism, then it is up to the laity, not the bishops, to deal with matters scientific and political guided by the truth of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit. It would seem they have not yet really learned enough about the Galileo issue.

The issue of Global Warming, or Global Climate Change (given that at least some measurements now show cooling instead of warming) is one of the hotter political issues. We can make a count of how many scientists are lining up on one side or another; but it bears keeping in mind that the scientific community is impacted mightily by politics if for no other reason than that a tremendous amount of grants are directly or indirectly governement related and/or granted and therefore politicized; only Pollyanna believes that the grant givers are not politically charged.

And if one digs deeply enough behind the scenes, one finds a Europe that is so secularized as to have almost completely removed the Church from any of the public sphere; the US is lagging but doing its best to become as secularized; and underneath a lot of the rhetoric and those propounding it is a clear desire to reduce populations; they are the backers of contraception, abortion and euthenasia. Not, of course that any of those ideologies would have anything to do with science, or an attempt to bend science to their political and ideological ends.

 

[po18guy]

Climate change is God’s responsibility and believe me when I say when Jesus comes back; they we need a new definition for the world climate change. We should be good stewards, but global warming, now called climate change, is a joke on tax payers. God gave us the earth and told man to “subdue” it. Genesis. What is a climatologist? A glorified meteorologist! They can’t even get the weather correct more than a day or two out, much less expand it to the entire earth. It’s about money, not science. Wake up America!

Amen! Behind every popular “the sky is falling” movement, you’ll find those who seek nothing but money and power. Power over us using our own money. No, thanks.

Let’s go back not so long ago to 1965 and the “great society” programs. “Poverty, ignorance and disease” were the targets of the liberal planners. After the expenditure of billions of dollars over more than 40 years, by each and every measure, these programs have failed. Failed miserably. The government response? “We’re underfunded” and “we need additional laws”. This constant plea for more money and power has become the methane pollution that is thinning the ozone.

Americans and Europeans wail over “climate change”, while NO ACTION is planned against the world’s grossest polluters: India and China. We clearly lack critical thinking skills in this age.

 

[po18guy]

Just to clarify (as I don’t believe it has been brought up yet), we need to look at what this letter is and what it is not. This is a joint letter from two particular offices in the USCCB: The Office of International Justice and Peace (which falls under the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development) and Catholic Relief Services (which is more of a program than an actual department). As such it is signed by the bishop who is the chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, and the lay USCCB staff person who serves as President of CRS. It is not some sort of statement agreed upon unanimously by all U.S. Bishops.

Putting such forth as a unified statement of the USCCB can function in similar manner to scriptural “cherry picking”: selecting only those Bishops, and those subjects which one agrees with. It is at best, misleading and at worst, deceptive.

We need to be careful not to conflate every single voice coming out of the USCCB as somehow signifying the voice of the U.S. Bishops as a collective whole.

Amen! Any guesses as to which Bishops are most associated with “social justice” and “climate change” and least with orthodoxy? Might they be the same who could not locate the glandular fortitude to join in the Notre Dame protest?

This particular letter is concerned with a specific policy and is the opinion of the two signatories of the letter (and the offices they represent) as to the best application of the Church’s social teaching in this particular instance. Certainly, no one is arguing over the Church teaching of stewardship over the earth. The debate is over the correct application of that teaching. And good Catholics can disagree over that.

That old bugaboo of the activist: Prudential judgment.

We also need to keep in mind that the science of climatology is not within the purview of the U.S. Bishops or the Church. They rely on the scientists to provide them with reliable information upon which to base their judgments, but there is no guarantee that these scientists are correct, nor are the resulting policy recommendations protected by the charism of infallibility.

Have any of the climate change Bishops suggested massive prayer campaigns? Or, are they still using the same 1960s playbook of “only by man’s efforts this will be solved” and “let our action be our prayer”?

Now does all this mean we can just dismiss the letter out-of-hand? No. We should certainly investigate these matters ourselves and take seriously any bishop’s suggestions on the application of Church teaching. But we are not bound by conscience to agree with him in this particular instance.

Absolutely. Reaction to the continuing drumbeat of climate change has resulted in a pandemic of “do something disease.”

 

[abukamoon]

Are the Bishops and Pope wrong? Should we be emailing them telling them they have been fooled by people with political agendas?

I don’t know if it would do any good. But neither the Pope, nor the bishops are experts in meteorology. They would do well to avoid becoming embroiled in politically motivated disputes.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

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.

Brilliantly articulated and so helpful to a Catholic, like me, who has up until now lacked much understanding on the issue. Thank you.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Global Warming Alarmists Out In The Cold:

news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Just out of curiosity, has there been any speculation in this debate about what effect a nuclear war would have on climate change? Given the current threats from N.Korea and the potential capabilities of Iran possessing weapons of mass destruction, shouldn’t we figure that into the equation? Or am I being totally ignorant?

 

[otjm]

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.

What made you ever actually think that what the Democratic party does actually helps the poor?

 

[po18guy]

Just out of curiosity, has there been any speculation in this debate about what effect a nuclear war would have on climate change? Given the current threats from N.Korea and the potential capabilities of Iran possessing weapons of mass destruction, shouldn’t we figure that into the equation? Or am I being totally ignorant?

Or, how about the non-man made eruption of Mount Pinatubu in the Phillipine Islands. It reportedly (mainstream media, even) released more “greenhouse gas” than all man-made sources throughout history. What are new laws, tax credits, reduced carbon footprints, wealth redistribution, etc. supposed to do about that? I suppose that we can all hold our breath, with half of us breathing on even or odd numbered days.

In all such “controversies”, follow the money. The power accompanies it.