Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Don_L]

To repeat: .

I for one agree with the following from “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good”. usccb.org/sdwp/internatio…lclimate.shtml

As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of “global warming.” Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research and prudent action

Funny thing that plea for dialogue. Al Gore -the secular pope of climate change ($100million richer already off of this scam while his personal pollution is higher than some factories). insists that we cannot have dialogue because discussion is closed as there is now a “consensus.” (Funny that sounds like politics not science to me.)

The ICCC report was a UN one-world power grab written by a few insiders. The original scientist merely said anthropomorphic climate change said it was possible, but there was no scientific evidence at all that it was caused by man. That paragraph was removed by the ICCC in order to push their agenda on the world.

Remember - There was a consensus as to whether we kill Christ or Barabbas and most them had faith that they were killing the right guy. Consensus in neither science not truth.

As far as the bishops are concerned, I’m still waiting to hear the voices of some 200 of the 360 plus Catholic bishops and archbishops who stood silent during the Church scandal, honoring a president who advocates infanticide at a key catholic institution. Or how 15 million dollars of our money to “help the poor,” managed to end up into Obama’s ACORN helping to elect a radical Culture of Death president. I have a long wait to be sure.

By the way, cap and trade is hardly prudent action.

 

[charlie2009]

I have really become very upset with the Church’s teachings on ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. With the volumes of new information out there that present opposition to the notion that global warming is man-made, I cannot believe that the Church doesn’t even appear to entertain the thought that maybe this is a natural occurrence, or to the fact that global temperatures have actually been decreasing since 2001.
We were told that Katrina type storms and hurricanes in general would increase ever year because of global warming- WRONG: not only have we not had a severe storm like Katrina, hurricanes have been below the average since 2005, and look to be even less this year. Droughts in the US would be increasing every year- WRONG: the past 2 years have been some of the wettest on record for most of the US. The list goes on and on of debunked theories.

It really seems to me that they jumped on the bandwagon with everyone else because they didn’t want to appear as if they didn’t care and risk losing more members.

I really wish that, not only the Church, but also governments around the world would open their minds and at least entertain the notion of a debate on this issue, because contrary to their beliefs, I, along with so many other citizens of the world, don’t believe the debate is over…we think it is just beginning.

 

[JimG]

I have really become very upset with the Church’s teachings on ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’.

The Church has no “teachings” on climate change or global warming. Climate change, global warming, those are not things that are matters of faith or morals. They are matters of scientific inquiry, political consensus, prudential judgment.

The fact that USCCB signed on to a website with other cosponsors such as LCWR (an organization which in my understanding is currently under a doctrinal review by the CDF), does not constitute a teaching.

 

[Don_L]

The Church has no “teachings” on climate change or global warming. Climate change, global warming, those are not things that are matters of faith or morals. They are matters of scientific inquiry, political consensus, prudential judgment.

The fact that USCCB signed on to a website with other cosponsors such as LCWR (an organization which in my understanding is currently under a doctrinal review by the CDF), does not constitute a teaching.

The USCCB is a national organization of bishops which, according to Cardinal Razinger, have no hierarchal role in the Church structure. In my opinion, the weakness with such organizations is that a few control and the rest are put in the position of having to openly dissagree or risk appearing to be outside the group - a strong influence indeed. Each Bishop is directly responsible for his own flock to Rome.

Like a group of parents all watching the kids collectively, there’s a chance someone will go missing when some assume incorrectly that the others are doing the watching properly.

 

[Joe_5859]

Like a group of parents all watching the kids collectively, there’s a chance someone will go missing when some assume incorrectly that the others are doing the watching properly.

I really like this analogy in reference to the USCCB (I think I will have to steal it ). I think it’s very apt. It’s like expecting the PTA to have more authority over a child than the child’s parents, even if the child’s parents are members of the PTA.

 

[Don_L]

I really like this analogy in reference to the USCCB (I think I will have to steal it ). I think it’s very apt. It’s like expecting the PTA to have more authority over a child than the child’s parents, even if the child’s parents are members of the PTA.

Help yourself to it Joe. As the old Jimmy Durante used to say with a shake of his head (and nose) “I got a million of em.”

 

[Jean_1958]

I’m a degreed meteorologist, and I say May and this June are pretty decent proof there in no global warming.

I live in Northeastern IL. Our summer got off to a very late start. When my daughter was growing up, we had summers so hot that we had to worry about heat waves and plenty of them. Water would flow from the hire hydrants and kids would play in the water. Water ride lines at Six Flags would be miles long. Families would break out the swimming pools en mass. Air Conditioners and fans would be running non-stop. However, that is no longer the case. Our summer weather has drastically changed.

And so has our winter weather. Our winters hit early and tend to overstay their welcome. They are cold, but the cold is a somewhat tolerable cold and we barely have any white Christmases anymore. When my daughter was growing up, Temps would fall well below -40 degrees Farenheit and we would have lots of white Christmases. The heater would be running non-stop. However, that is no longer the case. Our winter weather is DEFINITELY not what it used to be.

Do I believe in climate change? Yes.
Do I believe our Pope and Bishops that we should be concerned about climate change? Yes.
Do I believe we should be doing all we can to slow it or stop it (man-made climate change that is)? Yes.

Following all this bs means I loose my car which means I have no way to make a livng, which means theres no way for my disabled wife to get to most of her doctors. Protecting the Earth from global warming will in essance kill me and my wife.

I am sorry to hear about your wife and am sorry you feel that way.

However, following all that “bs” as you put it will help you live longer and it will help help everyone else live longer. It will also ensure that our Earth is still here for our kids, their kids, and future generations to come.

Jean

 

[Jean_1958]

Obviously if you have concluded that climate change isn’t real, and you do not believe you should take any action… I am guessing this doesn’t have any significance for you at all.
I happen to believe that the Bishops are a group of well educated men who have had the opportunity to review the information as anyone has and they have drawn their conclusion apparently.

Well put.

Jean

 

[4elise]

However, following all that “bs” as you put it will help you live longer and it will help help everyone else live longer. It will also ensure that our Earth is still here for our kids, their kids, and future generations to come.

Jean

Exactly - thanks for putting the emphasis on the future.

 

[Jean_1958]

I can not beleive a sensible person would buy into the climate change garbage,a science only followed for a few short yrs and in actuallity a false religion.

And I cannot believe anyone would be so bold as to blantantly deny climate change, but if they want to do so then no one is stopping them from denying climate change. However, I feel the evidence is truly there. All I have to do is look at our summer and winter weather in Northeastern IL and see that it has significantly changed over the past 20 or 30 years. I do not need anymore proof to know climate change is not real.

As to were causing this baloney called Climate Change (which by the way is a constant) my question is if Humans are causing it then what caused the end of the last big ice age that ended over a million yrs ago.

Natural forces were at work.

But even though I believe natural forces at work can alter the climate, I also believe that we humans can also effect climate change. Everything we do has consequences. We do things that harm the environment and we do things that will not harm the environment.

Our planet is ever-changing and so is its climate, whether we do something to contribute to it or not.

Jean

 

[Don_L]

I live in Northeastern IL. Our summer got off to a very late start. When my daughter was growing up, we had summers so hot that we had to worry about heat waves and plenty of them. Water would flow from the hire hydrants and kids would play in the water. Water ride lines at Six Flags would be miles long. Families would break out the swimming pools en mass. Air Conditioners and fans would be running non-stop. However, that is no longer the case. Our summer weather has drastically changed.

And so has our winter weather. Our winters hit early and tend to overstay their welcome. They are cold, but the cold is a somewhat tolerable cold and we barely have any white Christmases anymore. When my daughter was growing up, Temps would fall well below -40 degrees Farenheit and we would have lots of white Christmases. The heater would be running non-stop. However, that is no longer the case. Our winter weather is DEFINITELY not what it used to be.

Do I believe in climate change? Yes.
Do I believe our Pope and Bishops that we should be concerned about climate change? Yes.
Do I believe we should be doing all we can to slow it or stop it (man-made climate change that is)? Yes.

I am sorry to hear about your wife and am sorry you feel that way.

However, following all that “bs” as you put it will help you live longer and it will help help everyone else live longer. It will also ensure that our Earth is still here for our kids, their kids, and future generations to come.

Jean

Might I suggest that the first requirement of a Catholic is to seek the truth that a well formed conscience might be consulted for action. Go to some web sites and listen to the issues -it is not about climate change, it is about **man causing climate change **and the issue is wide open and political in nature -distorting science. Consensus is not and cannot be confused with evidential science. (truth)

Man has been gifted with reason in order to seek and discern truth, not merely choose a side on feelings and emotions. Read the research of those thousands of scientist who believe it’s a hoax and tell why. Find out who’s pushing it and how it benefits them. Fear for the lost of truth -rather that the loss of the planet. There is no reason to believe it is in danger. That is what the political class and those who have invested in the hoax, hope you’ll believe.

 

[4elise]

Might I suggest that the first requirement of a Catholic is to seek the truth that a well formed conscience might be consulted for action. Go to some web sites and listen to the issues -it is not about climate change, it is about **man causing climate change **and the issue is wide open and political in nature -distorting science. Consensus is not and cannot be confused with evidential science. (truth)

Man has been gifted with reason in order to seek and discern truth, not merely choose a side on feelings and emotions. Read the research of those thousands of scientist who believe it’s a hoax and tell why. Find out who’s pushing it and how it benefits them. Fear for the lost of truth -rather that the loss of the planet. There is no reason to believe it is in danger. That is what the political class and those who have invested in the hoax, hope you’ll believe.

I have read many of the links that have been provided by those who say climate change is either not happening, or is happening but not man made.

I too, though a woman, am also gifted with reason and have been seeking to discern the truth on this issue, outside of any political agenda. Others may have come to a different conclusion, but I would not presume to suggest that they are not seeking the truth or are choosing a side ‘merely’ on feelings or emotions.

What I have come to believe is that climate change is happening, and that our actions are impacting the change - I believe therefore, that I can also take personal action that can have some impact. I also agree that the area of policy is much larger and must weigh short-term benefit / risk against long range benefit / risk - AND once again - this is where I VALUE the information coming from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urging that the needs of the poor and most vulnerable remain at the heart of the discussion.

 

[Don_L]

I have read many of the links that have been provided by those who say climate change is either not happening, or is happening but not man made.

I too, though a woman, am also gifted with reason and have been seeking to discern the truth on this issue, outside of any political agenda. Others may have come to a different conclusion, but I would not presume to suggest that they are not seeking the truth or are choosing a side ‘merely’ on feelings or emotions.

What I have come to believe is that climate change is happening, and that our actions are impacting the change - I believe therefore, that I can also take personal action that can have some impact. I also agree that the area of policy is much larger and must weigh short-term benefit / risk against long range benefit / risk - AND once again - this is where I VALUE the information coming from the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urging that the needs of the poor and most vulnerable remain at the heart of the discussion.

I have no Idea what being a woman has to do with the discussion at hand. Just to add a couple of points, and I’ll let it be finished;

A debate on the particulars of this “un-science” would involve too much pooling of ignorance. For, me it is sufficient that thousands of learned scientists do not accept this as science. Many jeopardizing their livelyhood to do so, and that many that support it fear for their livelyhood.

I cannot fathom that “helping the poor” has anything to do with the validity of the issue and certainly see the folly of “cap and trade” as a vehicle for either reducing emissions, or helping the poor, who will be hurt the most by expensive “green” energy costs and regulations. The entire idea is folly; that buying the right to pollute, somehow reduces it. It merely becomes an egalitarian dream to force the transfer of wealth, while those priveliged politicians and their friends, reap the windfall from being properly positioned beforehand. India told us what they think it will do to their millions of poor when they said, “No thanks!”

This is about controlling the sovereignity of successful nations and “taxing” their wealth on what once was Global cooling (ice age) then global warming, then when those failed, it became climate change, and when that failed, it now becomes pollution. This is science?

Paying for the right to pollute(if that’s what Co2 is) is about money you see - not at all about saving the planet, though I certainly accept many people’s(but not all) sincerity in the matter.

 

[Ender]

I have really become very upset with the Church’s teachings on ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’.

As JimG correctly observed, there is no Church teaching on global warming, but this doesn’t change the fact that, because of statements from the USCCB, many people believe that there is some sort of moral obligation to believe that man is responsible for global warming and that we must adopt certain proposed “solutions”. The bishops have really done us a disservice by getting involved in this issue.

As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of “global warming.” Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research and prudent action (USCCB)

This particular comment is quite disturbing because it is so disingenuous. The bishops may claim to make no independent judgment on the plausibility of global warming but that self serving claim is irrelevant because they do make an independent judgment on the plausibility of the IPCC.

AGW is a scientific theory about which there is serious scientific dispute. The bishops are far off the reservation when they weigh in on such a topic and they are certainly not to be applauded when they put their moral influence in the hands of miscellaneous committees who misuse it in pushing their own personal agendas.

Since this is a scientific question and not a moral one there is no justification for the bishops to suggest how Catholics should respond.

Ender

 

[4elise]

I have no Idea what being a woman has to do with the discussion at hand. Just to add a couple of points, and I’ll let it be finished;

My comment on being a woman and being able to discern truth was in response to: “**Man **has been gifted with reason in order to seek and discern truth, not merely choose a side on feelings and emotions.” ***because I read in this comment the inference that men use reason and women chose a side on feelings and emotions - ***

A debate on the particulars of this “un-science” would involve too much pooling of ignorance. For, me it is sufficient that thousands of learned scientists do not accept this as science. Many jeopardizing their livelyhood to do so, and that many that support it fear for their livelyhood.

Again - I’ll try not to read this to say that you find those who disagree with you to be ignorant…

I cannot fathom that “helping the poor” has anything to do with the validity of the issue and certainly see the folly of “cap and trade” as a vehicle for either reducing emissions, or helping the poor, who will be hurt the most by expensive “green” energy costs and regulations. The entire idea is folly; that buying the right to pollute, somehow reduces it. It merely becomes an egalitarian dream to force the transfer of wealth, while those priveliged politicians and their friends, reap the windfall from being properly positioned beforehand. India told us what they think it will do to their millions of poor when they said, “No thanks!”

This is about controlling the sovereignity of successful nations and “taxing” their wealth on what once was Global cooling (ice age) then global warming, then when those failed, it became climate change, and when that failed, it now becomes pollution. This is science?

Paying for the right to pollute(if that’s what Co2 is) is about money you see - not at all about saving the planet, though I certainly accept many people’s(but not all) sincerity in the matter.

I believe that many people who have come to the conclusion that the scientists who say that (1) climate change is real and (2) that there are man made factors — are all motivated by some plot to take over the world, may also be sincere, and not motivated by the need to hang on to their money and not provide for the most vulnerable.

However, I appreciate the sincerity of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and while many seem to be able to discount this I am glad for their leadership on the issue.

 

[4elise]

As JimG correctly observed, there is no Church teaching on global warming, but this doesn’t change the fact that, because of statements from the USCCB, many people believe that there is some sort of moral obligation to believe that man is responsible for global warming and that we must adopt certain proposed “solutions”. The bishops have really done us a disservice by getting involved in this issue.
This particular comment is quite disturbing because it is so disingenuous. The bishops may claim to make no independent judgment on the plausibility of global warming but that self serving claim is irrelevant because they do make an independent judgment on the plausibility of the IPCC.

AGW is a scientific theory about which there is serious scientific dispute. The bishops are far off the reservation when they weigh in on such a topic and they are certainly not to be applauded when they put their moral influence in the hands of miscellaneous committees who misuse it in pushing their own personal agendas.

Since this is a scientific question and not a moral one there is no justification for the bishops to suggest how Catholics should respond.

Ender

It is the HOW WE RESPOND that is the moral issue.

Do our actions keep the poor and most vulnerable at the heart, as the Holy Father has insisted must be our measure, or are we only worried about preserving our own way of life to their determent?

 

[4elise]

From the web site Catholic Coalition on Climate Change:

catholicsandclimatechange.org/

Learn about Catholic Principles and Teachings applied to the issue of global climate change:

* **Prudence**—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action
*** Poverty**—concern for those least able to bear the burden
* **The Common Good**—promotion of solidarity over self-interest

 

[JimG]

It is the HOW WE RESPOND that is the moral issue.

Do our actions keep the poor and most vulnerable at the heart, as the Holy Father has insisted must be our measure, or are we only worried about preserving our own way of life to their determent?

“How we respond” is exactly the issue.

Will passing cap and trade legislation help the poor? I don’t think so. Will it deter global warming? From what I’ve heard, it will not. It will simply increase the cost of energy and most other products—since energy is used in their manufacture.

Will adopting CO2 limits for wealthy countries but not for developing countries reduce total CO2? Probably not. Countries such as China will not stop building coal-fired generating plants, nor will other developing countries.

Will mandating the use of windmill and battery and solar power while increasing the cost of hydrocarbons help the poor? Again, not likely, but it would have a negative effect on the national economy.

Will taxing cars by miles driven help the poor? Not likely. I’m sure it won’t help those living in rural parts of Kansas or Texas or states which take 5+ hours to drive across. It might have the effect of encouraging even more migration to crowded urban areas and creating even more ghost towns while overtaxing urban infrastructures.

Does the USCCB have a position on all these issues?
It doesn’t sound like it, but their statements have enough ambiguity to tilt toward one side of the issues while not providing specifics.

 

[4elise]

“How we respond” is exactly the issue.

Exactly

Will passing cap and trade legislation help the poor? I don’t think so. Will it deter global warming? From what I’ve heard, it will not. It will simply increase the cost of energy and most other products—since energy is used in their manufacture.

Will adopting CO2 limits for wealthy countries but not for developing countries reduce total CO2? Probably not. Countries such as China will not stop building coal-fired generating plants, nor will other developing countries.

Will mandating the use of windmill and battery and solar power while increasing the cost of hydrocarbons help the poor? Again, not likely, but it would have a negative effect on the national economy.

Will taxing cars by miles driven help the poor? Not likely. I’m sure it won’t help those living in rural parts of Kansas or Texas or states which take 5+ hours to drive across. It might have the effect of encouraging even more migration to crowded urban areas and creating even more ghost towns while overtaxing urban infrastructures.

Does the USCCB have a position on all these issues?
It doesn’t sound like it, but their statements have enough ambiguity to tilt toward one side of the issues while not providing specifics.

Each of these points is WHERE I think the discussion belongs as it relates to policy, and if we put our heads in the sand or cover our ears and say ‘its not happening, its not happening’ we won’t have a voice at the table. People of good will may come to different conclusions, but WE need to speak for the poor her and around the world and try to ensure that the discussion keeps their needs at the heart.

THEN we need to make personal choices that that reflect this awareness too! Pece

 

[Ender]

It is the HOW WE RESPOND that is the moral issue.

In most instances this is not correct. Except for a handful of issues where the response itself determines the morality of the action (issues of intrinsic evil) the morality of most acts is determined not by what we do but by why we do it. This is why I so strongly resist people’s inclination to make global warming a moral issue when it is not. The only way to claim others are acting immorally is to assume that their actions are based on selfish unconcern for others. There is no way at all to claim that they are behaving immorally based simply on what they do since, on this topic, it is the intentions that determine the morality of the responses.

Ender