Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[Al_Masetti]

Weather/ climate [pick your definition / descriptor ] appear to be cyclical.

And folks do realize that things this year are cooler.

When the weather spikes up for a day, the warmers say it’s proof of global warming and man made climate change.

When the weather cools for 10 or 15 years, the warmers say it doesn’t prove anything.

If a glacier behaves one way, it’s warming. If a glacier disappears another way … like in New Jersey, they ignore it. [By the way, if you get to Glen Rock (NJ), take a look at the GLEN ROCK … a souvenir left behind by the melted glacier.]

Hmmmm.

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=487708

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Oh, gee whiz,man!

:whackadoo:"HITLER WAS A NAZI! HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN! HITLER WAS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST!:jrbirdman:

The truth is the truth whether it’s popular or not. It is not a matter of consensus.

When you fall into the trap of buying curly light bulbs, intentionally or not, useful idiot or not, you ally yourself with those whose philosophy is eugenics, of culling the ‘planet’ of ‘life not worth living.’

I urge you to look up that last statement. Today’s climate-change pushers had other shoulders to stand on.

 

[TEPO]

The truth is the truth whether it’s popular or not. It is not a matter of consensus.

When you fall into the trap of buying curly light bulbs, intentionally or not, useful idiot or not, you ally yourself with those whose philosophy is eugenics, of culling the ‘planet’ of ‘life not worth living.’

I urge you to look up that last statement. Today’s climate-change pushers had other shoulders to stand on.

I know its a taboo to talk about these truths, and the brave ones who do, unfortunately, tend to risk their credibility. I think the youngness of this generation dosent want to believe that this kind of stuff could happen. They dont think it’s possible.
But when your govorning officials dont believe in Biblical teaching, and take on earthly morals, new “proven” or “statistical” or “scientific” ideas, then new laws are enforced. Ones that are mercyless and ultimately Godless. China has no biblical aspects in their govornment, and we see EUGENICS put widely into use. So if Al Gore believes in the non-biblical “Gaia Theory”, because its logical, then human logic has replaced God. God forbid he or any of his type become President of our country. Love, forgiveness, and Mercy will be replaced with more logical ideas. Naturally!!!
I’m not saying we should not protect Gods creation, rather we should’nt base our Govornment on the Theory that the earth is our only salvation. If you do, then you are not following the Gospel. Its your choice.

Read this… ohioswallow.com/extras/082141691X_intro.pdf

 

[Contarini]

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

How, as a scientist, can you possibly use selective evidence like this? Isn’t this contrary to basic scientific method? If we have a hot month, does that prove that global warming is true?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The truth is the truth whether it’s popular or not. It is not a matter of consensus.

When you fall into the trap of buying curly light bulbs, intentionally or not, useful idiot or not, you ally yourself with those whose philosophy is eugenics, of culling the ‘planet’ of 'life not worth living.

That’s bizarrely irrational. Hitler also banned abortion. Does that mean that when we oppose abortion we are siding with Hitler? Of course not.

Good is good, no matter what unsavory characters may sign on to it.

Edwin

 

[MargaretMary39]

I’m confused?

In this thread it looks like the many people in the Church, the bishops, the leadership of mens and womens religious organizations seem to be saying that we need to do something about global warming - so as Catholics aren’t we supposed to care about what they say?

 

[JimG]

I’m confused?

In this thread it looks like the many people in the Church, the bishops, the leadership of mens and womens religious organizations seem to be saying that we need to do something about global warming - so as Catholics aren’t we supposed to care about what they say?

Hmm, that’s just it. What do they say? Support cap and trade? Support higher energy prices? Support restrictions on coal and oil? All I’ve heard is generalities. And when it comes to specific policies, prudential judgment comes into play. Bishops and religious organizations have no more expertise on these matters than the rest of us.

 

[Ender]

In this thread it looks like the many people in the Church, the bishops, the leadership of mens and womens religious organizations seem to be saying that we need to do something about global warming - so as Catholics aren’t we supposed to care about what they say?

In fact all that they have said is that we should care for the environment and be concerned for the poor. What they have not said is how we are to do that so each of us is free to choose the actions he thinks will have the most beneficial effect. Some believe we must cut CO2 emissions, others, myself included, believe this will do nothing beneficial and will in fact be harmful. The point is that the actions of both sides, even though they are completely opposed to one another, are morally equivalent as long as the intentions are valid.

Man made global warming is a scientific theory. The Church has no position on whether or not it is valid.

Ender

 

[MargaretMary39]

In fact all that they have said is that we should care for the environment and be concerned for the poor. What they have not said is how we are to do that so each of us is free to choose the actions he thinks will have the most beneficial effect. Some believe we must cut CO2 emissions, others, myself included, believe this will do nothing beneficial and will in fact be harmful. The point is that the actions of both sides, even though they are completely opposed to one another, are morally equivalent as long as the intentions are valid.

Man made global warming is a scientific theory. The Church has no position on whether or not it is valid.

Ender

morality aside… why would it be harmful to cut CO2 emissions?

 

[JimG]

morality aside… why would it be harmful to cut CO2 emissions?

We need CO2 in the atmosphere in order to promote plant growth. Plants use CO2 in the photosynthesis process to produce oxygen. And animals need oxygen to survive. Apparently plant growth can be increased by introducing more CO2. But I do not know what the optimal percentages would be. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[wizeoz]

I just started reading this thread… it’s 50 pages long right now… so I didn’t read every bit of it and apologize if it has already been stated…

I don’t think God would create us, and then by our very existence, cause the destruction of the earth. That just does not make any sense to me.

Global warming/cooling/climate change or what ever else liberals want to call it, is nothing but a play for power, a play to get our money by scaring us into unreasonable reactions.

I will have to find the time to read through the other threads… pax.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Bill -

Wow indeed. I don’t think I’ve ever had someone admit to being convinced by an argument before. I feel a little like a dog that has chased squirrels all his life and has finally caught one … and has no idea what to do with it. Anyway, I never took offense at any of your comments and look forward to having at it again on some other topic.

Ender

Ok Ender, I suppose I haven’t had enough. So, check this out…
Ecological commitment is not only a question of concern for natural beings and the atmosphere around them. It is a question of morality, and therefore of man’s responsibilities within God’s designs
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1990/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19900518_acc-scienze_en.html

 

[Ender]

morality aside… why would it be harmful to cut CO2 emissions?

In the abstract it probably wouldn’t; the problem comes from the ways in which CO2 would have to be reduced: from the generation of energy. A reduction in energy production would be catastrophic to third world countries trying to modernize - e.g. China, which is adding a new coal fired generating plant about every ten days. In our own country the reduction of power would raise the cost of literally everything … the sort of thing that tends to make the poor poorer. Adversely impacting pretty much everyone for zero benefit is not something that makes a lot of sense.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ok Ender, I suppose I haven’t had enough. So, check this out…
Ecological commitment is not only a question of concern for natural beings and the atmosphere around them. It is a question of morality, and therefore of man’s responsibilities within God’s designs
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1990/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19900518_acc-scienze_en.html

Bill - OK, I checked it out and nowhere does it say that we have a moral obligation to accept the theory of AGW. Here are some of the things he says:

We must "foster an enlightened moral commitment"

Man “must not make use of nature against his own good, the good of his fellow human beings and the good of future generations.”

"Man is not allowed to do what he wishes and how he wishes with the creatures around him. "

“Ecological commitment is not only a question of concern for natural beings and the atmosphere around them.”

Sign me up; I’m all for everything he said. So? You cannot assume that this statement of guidelines means that there is only one way they can be satisfied. There is no reason whatever to assume that people on either side of the AGW debate are not in full agreement with all of this … because there is nothing there that specifies how we must act. My opposition to AGW surely cannot be taken to mean that my “ecological commitment” is any less than yours or any one else’s. We disagree on how to accomplish the task. It’s no different than driving to church in the morning and you say we should go left and I say we should go right; our objective is the same even though we completely disagree on how to achieve it.

You will not find any Church document saying that there is a moral obligation to accept the theory of AGW. The Church specifies the objectives; the accomplishment of those objectives is a prudential problem left to each of us to resolve.

Ask yourself this the next time someone throws down the “moral issue” challenge: if you assume the person on the “wrong” side of the issue is a good person, what sin would you accuse him of committing for opposing your solution? If he commits no sin then it’s not a moral issue. If you assume he sins because of some moral defect (greed, selfishness, …) then it is you who sins because of your uncharitable judgment.

Ender

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Ok Ender, I suppose I haven’t had enough. So, check this out…
Ecological commitment is not only a question of concern for natural beings and the atmosphere around them. It is a question of morality, and therefore of man’s responsibilities within God’s designs
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1990/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19900518_acc-scienze_en.html

I can’t believe this bugged me all night. The first thing I did was turn on my computer and check this…man, I gotta get a life…

Bill - OK, I checked it out and nowhere does it say that we have a moral obligation to accept the theory of AGW. Here are some of the things he says:

We must "foster an enlightened moral commitment"

Man “must not make use of nature against his own good, the good of his fellow human beings and the good of future generations.”

"Man is not allowed to do what he wishes and how he wishes with the creatures around him. "

“Ecological commitment is not only a question of concern for natural beings and the atmosphere around them.”

Sign me up; I’m all for everything he said.

You will not find any Church document saying that there is a moral obligation to accept the theory of AGW.

Ask yourself this the next time someone throws down the “moral issue” challenge: if you assume the person on the “wrong” side of the issue is a good person, what sin would you accuse him of committing for opposing your solution? If he commits no sin then it’s not a moral issue. If you assume he sins because of some moral defect (greed, selfishness, …) then it is you who sins because of your uncharitable judgment.

Ender

**You are correct that it does use the phrase “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Nobody uses that phrase except the people who are are attempting to refute the evidence. The document is clear in stating that it is a moral issue of human impact on the environment.

There is no judgment in this. But it is a commendable attempt to turn the tables. If you do not wish to see it, then there is nothing I can do. I merely present the evidence.

I am not out to WIN the argument. That would just be egotistical and vain. I am weighing the pros and cons of the issue. And again, I am sticking with the Vatican.**

 

[Ender]

You are correct that it does use the phrase “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Nobody uses that phrase except the people who are are attempting to refute the evidence.

The entire debate is not whether global warming is occurring but whether man is responsible; that is, is global warming anthropogenic or not. If you prefer MMGW (man-made global warming) or enhanced greenhouse warming then use whatever term you choose … but some term has to be used to even define the debate.

**The document is clear in stating that it is a moral issue of human impact on the environment. **

It is a great leap to assume that “human impact on the environment” necessarily means or even includes global warming - especially since the talk was given to a scientific assembly meeting to discuss “Tropical Forests and the Conservation of Species” where the main concern was about the loss of tropical forests - due to deforestation.

If you do not wish to see it, then there is nothing I can do. I merely present the evidence.

Evidence yes; proof no. I could make the same charge against you as there is certainly evidence for the position I support.

I am not out to WIN the argument. That would just be egotistical and vain.

Musth … bidte … dunge

** I am weighing the pros and cons of the issue. And again, I am sticking with the Vatican.**

I ask you again: if this is a moral issue then what sin do you accuse me of committing by rejecting the arguments supporting a particular scientific theory?

Ender

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I ask you again: if this is a moral issue then what sin do you accuse me of committing by rejecting the arguments supporting a particular scientific theory?

Ender

…er,…excuse me for just a minute… :banghead:

:blackeye: **Are you accusing me of sin? You say I am accusing you of sin. The document is about the deforestation, that is true…But, it is going on all over the world. I am seeking out information. You seem to know a lot about this. So, if it appears as if I am just trying to win an argument, I apologize for the inadvertent misrepresentation. I can not find sources to support the claim that it isn’t real other than blogs (which do not cite their sources)and opinions. That is all.

:nunchuk: don’t get huffy with me, bubba!**

 

[Ender]

** You say I am accusing you of sin. **

If this is a moral issue then the people on one side are acting morally and the people on the other side are acting immorally, that is, sinning. If you and I take opposite sides of a moral issue then surely one of us is being immoral. I don’t accuse you of being immoral because this is not a moral issue. I believe simply that you are mistaken. Abortion is a moral issue and those who do not oppose it are committing a sin. “Climate change” is not a moral issue so supporting or rejecting the theory of AGW is morally neutral.

The document is about the deforestation, that is true…But, it is going on all over the world. I am seeking out information.

But deforestation is not the question raised by this thread and nothing can be inferred about my position on deforestation from my disbelief in AGW .

**I can not find sources to support the claim that it isn’t real other than blogs (which do not cite their sources)and opinions. **

For the issue raised on this thread it really doesn’t matter whether AGW is true or false; the question is whether the (reasonable) belief that it is false constitutes a sin. The reason there is no “Catholic” response to the theory of AGW is that belief or disbelief in a scientific theory is not a moral question.

:nunchuk: don’t get huffy with me, bubba!

I may puff but I don’t huff.

Ender

 

[Bill_Cherry]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1990/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19900518_acc-scienze_en.html

1. Tropical forests deserve our attention, study and protection. As well as making an essential contribution to the regulation of the earth’s climatic conditions,…

:nunchuk:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070901_symposium-environment_en.html

Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family. No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all** economic and social development. **

 

[MargaretMary39]

We need CO2 in the atmosphere in order to promote plant growth. Plants use CO2 in the photosynthesis process to produce oxygen. And animals need oxygen to survive. Apparently plant growth can be increased by introducing more CO2. But I do not know what the optimal percentages would be. Maybe someone else knows.

I thought that the problem was that there is now too much CO2 - and that is what is causing global warming? Somewhere here I read something about the Vatican becoming the first country to not produce CO2 maybe that is not true?