Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[JimG]

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?

If you drive a car, heat with a gas furnace, produce electricity with a coal or gas fired generator, or breathe, CO2 is always produced. It is an essential product of mammalian as well as plant metabolism. So I doubt that Vatican City is not producing any CO2. I think that the claim was that they were CO2 neutral. Whether or not there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently what the debate is all about, as well as whether mankind is the cause of any excess. CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas, allowing heat to be retained in the atmosphere. It is not the most voluminous of the greenhouse gases; that honor goes to water vapor.

 

[Ender]

Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.

I have paid particular attention to climate change and have therefore satisfied this obligation.

No nation or business sector can ignore the ethical implications present in all** economic and social development. **

I agree with this. This obligation is also satisfied.

The problem with most “X is a moral issue” arguments is that they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of morality. Most issues are not moral of themselves but offer us the opportunity to behave rightly. Given that every problem harms someone, whose difficulties would be eased if the problem was solved, attacking that problem is to behave morally, while ignoring it would be immoral. This, however, does not make the issue a question of morality because the morality of the situation lies entirely within each of us. The problem is morally neutral - like a sore throat; morality comes in from the way in which we respond to the problem, whether by trying to help someone or by ignoring them. The morality of our actions is determined exclusively by our intentions and not at all by the nature of the issue we are acting on.

There is, however, a class of issues that are truly moral in that our intentions are irrelevant; the morality of our actions is determined entirely by the nature of the issue in question. Abortion and euthanasia are two such issues.

For issues in the first category, the people who see them as “moral issues” are simply assuming that the people who oppose their own solutions are acting immorally through personal moral failure. As I said before, if you assume that the person opposing your views is a good person who is simply mistaken, then you have no basis at all for believing that X (climate change, health care, immigration …) is a moral issue.

Ender

 

[walker_p]

GENEVA (AFP) – Roman Catholics in two southern Swiss Alpine communities want to give up a centennial tradition of praying for the retreat of mountain glaciers and switch to prayers against climate change instead.

“A lot of ice has melted,” parish priest Pascal Venetz told the Swiss news agency SDA on Thursday.

Father Venetz is seeking the approval of Pope Benedict XVI for the change on behalf of his parishioners and an audience for the local bishop is reportedly being arranged in Rome.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090806/od_afp/switzerlandenvironmentwarmingreligionoffbeat_20090806160607

It would seem that several groups are taking this climate change thing seriously. I wonder why certain groups want to see it dismissed as some sort of error? Could it be that they are afraid of something? I do not know what that would be. But, it seems like a good idea to make some changes in the way we are treating our planet. Regardless of whether global warming or cooling or change is real or not. Conservative types always resist change. I suppose they have either no hope or no confidence in human judgment.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. We know for a fact that is was a lot hotter in the middle ages than it is today. And they did not have all the co2 in the atmosphere. Apparently, then c02 leads to global cooling. Why do we want it dismissed as an error? Because it is an error. Why would we want people to embrace a lie? Some people think 2 + 2 equals 7. Some people take the flat earth society seriously. So what? I agree we need to make changes in the way we are treating our planet. We need to start drilling more for oil and building more oil refineries. Liberal types always propose changes to try and control people’s lives - and in this case they are using the lie of man-made global warming to do it. I have no hope and no confidence in liberal judgment!!!

 

[4elise]

There is no such thing as man-made global warming.

Seems like a lot of people disagree with this. A LOT OF PEOPLE -

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

“The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,” said Doran.**

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

(no doubt you will discount the source - sigh)

We know for a fact that is was a lot hotter in the middle ages than it is today. And they did not have all the co2 in the atmosphere. Apparently, then c02 leads to global cooling. Why do we want it dismissed as an error? Because it is an error. Why would we want people to embrace a lie? Some people think 2 + 2 equals 7. Some people take the flat earth society seriously. So what? I agree we need to make changes in the way we are treating our planet. We need to start drilling more for oil and building more oil refineries. Liberal types always propose changes to try and control people’s lives - and in this case they are using the lie of man-made global warming to do it. I have no hope and no confidence in liberal judgment!!!

And why should we believe those who make buckets full of money on drilling for and producing oil over the scientists… honestly those who have drunk to kool aid of denying man made climate change are the tools of the oil industry - and the powerful lobbying interests in Washington to keep the status quo - who cares about the poor??? who cares about the future of the planet??? — I’ll tell you who - The CATHOLIC CHURCH - I am so proud of what has come out of the CATHOLIC COALITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE - the leadership of the CHURCH calling on the faithful to stand for the poor, to stand for creation -

I am sick to death of those who deny the impact of our actions on climate change - and don’t realize that they are being used - used by the RICH AND POWERFUL - to use up creation - and stomp on the poor.

It is time to WAKE UP and be the voice - as CATHOLICS we should be the most counter cultural group in the world - fighting for those who live on islands in the pacific - finding ways to keep the islands from the rising tides, fighting to make sure that the fields in northern Africa can still produce rice - we MUST stop our selfish me first ways

There are things we can do as individuals, there are things we can do as communities, as nations, EVEN IF EVERYONE ELSE ISN’T ON BOARD - if we lead - others will follow.

http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/

For those who can on this issue discount the (name removed by moderator)ut of our Bishops - can you really call yourselves Catholic?

And - for all the intellectualizing that goes on around the words ’moral issue’ ----- if thousands are going to lose their homes in Micronesia because I refuse to take action - if millions more are going to be ill in sub Saharan Africa because I am too lazy or selfish to give up something - YES I believe this is a moral issue -

So - to those who can sit back and deny man made climate change - sit back - go ahead sit back and get out of the way … those of us who accept our CATHOLIC responsibility will take the necessary action - personally, as communities, and yes nationally - if it is too late - well we will know we’ve tried -

Go ahead now and find your blogs that say it isn’t so - go ahead and find the couple of ‘scientists’ who don’t have any peer reviewed material to support their claims, go ahead.

For me - and other CATHOLICS who believe we are to be the counter in the culture we will continue to act, speak out and try to take action that keeps the poor at the heart of the discussion

For those who want to argue that cap and trade will hurt the poor - yup - it will cost more to heat our homes, to drive our cars - guess what - we aren’t the only people in the world, yes we have poverty here in the US - but we have the very flawed safety net - while others around the world had no food today, as of now it is estimated that some 75 million climate refugees will be the beginning of the tide in Asia ( ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47944 ), others are without ANY medical care - if you care so much about the poor - then do something to help those here at home pay their bills (we can do that on our own utility bills) - DO SOMETHING

GIVE UP MEAT - go vegan - you will save LOTS of money, beans are cheap! - you can give to the poor, pay yours and other’s heating bills - buy your stuff at a thrift store instead of WalMart - you’ll save even more ---- WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD AND MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE IF WE CONNECT THE DOTS - MAKE THE SACRIFICES - BE THE COUNTER IN THE CULTURE - CARE ABOUT PEOPLE - NOT JUST IN THE US BUT AROUND THE WORLD -** BE CATHOLIC **

now - I have NO DOUBT THAT MANY HERE WILL go ahead and COMPLETELY discount what I say by calling me liberal - by saying I care more about this then the unborn, ummmm what else do we do to derail conversations here at CAF?? Oh, I know start talking about the president - that is always a good one… REALLY -

 

[walker_p]

Seems like a lot of people disagree with this. A LOT OF PEOPLE -

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

(no doubt you will discount the source - sigh)

And why should we believe those who make buckets full of money on drilling for and producing oil over the scientists… honestly those who have drunk to kool aid of denying man made climate change are the tools of the oil industry - and the powerful lobbying interests in Washington to keep the status quo - who cares about the poor??? who cares about the future of the planet??? — I’ll tell you who - The CATHOLIC CHURCH - I am so proud of what has come out of the CATHOLIC COALITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE - the leadership of the CHURCH calling on the faithful to stand for the poor, to stand for creation -

I am sick to death of those who deny the impact of our actions on climate change - and don’t realize that they are being used - used by the RICH AND POWERFUL - to use up creation - and stomp on the poor.

It is time to WAKE UP and be the voice - as CATHOLICS we should be the most counter cultural group in the world - fighting for those who live on islands in the pacific - finding ways to keep the islands from the rising tides, fighting to make sure that the fields in northern Africa can still produce rice - we MUST stop our selfish me first ways

There are things we can do as individuals, there are things we can do as communities, as nations, EVEN IF EVERYONE ELSE ISN’T ON BOARD - if we lead - others will follow.

http://www.catholicsandclimatechange.org/

For those who can on this issue discount the (name removed by moderator)ut of our Bishops - can you really call yourselves Catholic?

And - for all the intellectualizing that goes on around the words ’moral issue’ ----- if thousands are going to lose their homes in Micronesia because I refuse to take action - if millions more are going to be ill in sub Saharan Africa because I am too lazy or selfish to give up something - YES I believe this is a moral issue -

So - to those who can sit back and deny man made climate change - sit back - go ahead sit back and get out of the way … those of us who accept our CATHOLIC responsibility will take the necessary action - personally, as communities, and yes nationally - if it is too late - well we will know we’ve tried -

Go ahead now and find your blogs that say it isn’t so - go ahead and find the couple of ‘scientists’ who don’t have any peer reviewed material to support their claims, go ahead.

For me - and other CATHOLICS who believe we are to be the counter in the culture we will continue to act, speak out and try to take action that keeps the poor at the heart of the discussion

For those who want to argue that cap and trade will hurt the poor - yup - it will cost more to heat our homes, to drive our cars - guess what - we aren’t the only people in the world, yes we have poverty here in the US - but we have the very flawed safety net - while others around the world had no food today, as of now it is estimated that some 75 million climate refugees will be the beginning of the tide in Asia ( ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47944 ), others are without ANY medical care - if you care so much about the poor - then do something to help those here at home pay their bills (we can do that on our own utility bills) - DO SOMETHING

GIVE UP MEAT - go vegan - you will save LOTS of money, beans are cheap! - you can give to the poor, pay yours and other’s heating bills - buy your stuff at a thrift store instead of WalMart - you’ll save even more ---- WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD AND MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE IF WE CONNECT THE DOTS - MAKE THE SACRIFICES - BE THE COUNTER IN THE CULTURE - CARE ABOUT PEOPLE - NOT JUST IN THE US BUT AROUND THE WORLD -** BE CATHOLIC **

now - I have NO DOUBT THAT MANY HERE WILL go ahead and COMPLETELY discount what I say by calling me liberal - by saying I care more about this then the unborn, ummmm what else do we do to derail conversations here at CAF?? Oh, I know start talking about the president - that is always a good one… REALLY -

We have heard all your hogwash before. There are many thousands of scientists who say you are wrong. I think you are the kool-aid drinker. If you want to help the poor, then do so. No one is stopping you. But stop with all the nonsense about man-made global warming. It is a lie and nothing you say will change that fact. Period. It is time for you to wake up from your environmental delusions. I will not stop eating meat. I will never become a vegetarian sissy. Scripture says that those who give up eating meat have departed from the faith. Besides meat is one of the healthiest things you can eat. The only way the lie of man-made global warming is a moral issue is in that people who have accepted this lie are now trying to get others to accept this lie. Go and help the poor, but stop trying to drag them into this nonsense. The earth has been cooling since at least 2002. I am sorry that this little inconvenient fact has gotten in the way of your crusade.
Peace.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

We have heard all your hogwash before. There are many thousands of scientists who say you are wrong.I think you are the kool-aid drinker. If you want to help the poor, then do so. No one is stopping you. But stop with all the nonsense about man-made global warming. It is a lie and nothing you say will change that fact. Period. It is time for you to wake up from your environmental delusions. I will not stop eating meat. I will never become a vegetarian sissy. Scripture says that those who give up eating meat have departed from the faith.

** No it doesn’t, why do you say that?**

Besides meat is one of the healthiest things you can eat.

The CDC estimates 97% of foodborne illness is caused by animal foods.The latest US Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey, for example, found 9 out of 10 Thanksgiving turkeys–over 90%–are contaminated with campylobacter, the most common cause of bacterial food poisoning in the US. And 75% of the turkeys are contaminated with two or more food-borne diseases, most often salmonella as well, which are becoming dangerously resistant to many of our best antibiotics. Meat is also linked to colon cancer, diabetes and heart disease. We are just trying to wake you folks up. Make you aware. It is or MORAL duty as Christians, if nothing else! We care about our Brothers and Sisters in Christ!!!darn it!!!

The only way the lie of man-made global warming is a moral issue is in that people who have accepted this lie are now trying to get others to accept this lie. Go and help the poor, but stop trying to drag them into this nonsense. The earth has been cooling since at least 2002. I am sorry that this little inconvenient fact has gotten in the way of your crusade.
Peace.

**It’s only a coincidental fact.Actually, it is both cooling and warming. It always has. However human activities have effected it whether you want to believe it or not. It just get’s more extreme each time the pendulum swings. Again, notice how the conservative mind employs the derogatory rhetoric of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck variety. Vehemently resisting the realities that threaten their antiquated mechanical view of the universe. It’s amazing…absolutely amazing…

I give up, I’m taking a break. These folks can’t see the big picture. They should turn off their confounded “talk radio” and CNN/CNBC and read the letters, speeches and encyclicals that the church puts out. Do some research. Don’t just be a “USEFUL IDIOT” for big business. They don’t care about you. And they are clever to get you to resist the change that is inevitable.
sheesh**

 

[Ender]

we MUST stop our selfish me first ways

I cannot think of anything that better illustrates the comments I made just a few posts earlier: the people who think this is a moral issue justify that claim by assuming the people who disagree with them are morally deficient. One cannot help but be struck by the absurdity of a situation where someone who claims to be putting her Catholic faith into action can only do so by behaving in a way the Church condemns. I am speaking specifically about the rash judgment you employ to demonize those of us who disagree with you. As the Catechism explains it:

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.

Not only have you not followed the requirement to interpret our words in a good light where they were unclear, you have rejected our clear explanations of what we believe and judged us not on our words but on your calumnies. Do you consider this “putting Catholic faith into action”?

For those who can on this issue discount the (name removed by moderator)ut of our Bishops - can you really call yourselves Catholic?

Of course. The bishops are free to express their prudential opinions, but as they are prudential opinions as opposed to explanations of doctrine, we are not obligated to assent to them. This is quite beyond the fact that no bishop has expressed the opinion that we have a moral obligation to believe the theory of AGW.

Ender

 

[4elise]

I cannot think of anything that better illustrates the comments I made just a few posts earlier: the people who think this is a moral issue justify that claim by assuming the people who disagree with them are morally deficient. One cannot help but be struck by the absurdity of a situation where someone who claims to be putting her Catholic faith into action can only do so by behaving in a way the Church condemns. I am speaking specifically about the rash judgment you employ to demonize those of us who disagree with you. As the Catechism explains it:

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.

I think Ender - you will find in ALL my posts with the exception of this last one - *I will admit *- I have done exactly that - I have worked to avoid rash judgement - but by post 700 this could hardly be called rash.

I believe YOU post in a rational way - considerate - appropriate - disagree in a way that one could never find fault with - and believe me, I’ve tired to do likewise, however as you can see from the other response I received to this post - this is more what I am responding to, not your well reasoned, thoughtful, well put comments - but those who have posted things which can not be backed up and state them as FACTS - those who REFUSE to direct their comments to the post, but attack in a ridiculous manner, .

All this being said - I do not say one who disagrees is morally deficient - HOWEVER - I do believe that if one does agree that there is MMCC (even if not publicly) and one is unwilling to do anything about it - to make personal, community and national sacrifices - THEN this is making a morally negative choice - I have TRIED to stay out of the argument for or against the facts - but honestly the ‘against’ factor just doesn’t make sense to me - and I do believe many (not you perhaps) want to think it isn’t happening so they DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THEIR LIVES.

Not only have you not followed the requirement to interpret our words in a good light where they were unclear, you have rejected our clear explanations of what we believe and judged us not on our words but on your calumnies. Do you consider this “putting Catholic faith into action”?

Of course. The bishops are free to express their prudential opinions, but as they are prudential opinions as opposed to explanations of doctrine, we are not obligated to assent to them. This is quite beyond the fact that no bishop has expressed the opinion that we have a moral obligation to believe the theory of AGW.

Ender

I have tried in this discussion to point to what the CATHOLIC CHURCH is calling us to consider - but no - it doesn’t line up with what others already believe - or they are unwilling to make sacrifices and changes in their own lives - so then they feel that they can discount this - however in all other things point to the the CHURCH for direction -

Honestly I agree with you - there is no moral obligation to believe in climate change - but that can’t be the end of the discussion - we need to educate ourselves, EVEN IF THIS MEANS WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES IN OUR LIVES. EVERYTHING I read from reliable sources SUPPORTS the impact of our actions on climate change - sure, I too can find blogs galore that do not think it is real - of course - it becomes an echo chamber of those who have come to believe what the powerful interests have convinced them - more oil - more oil - more oil - that will solve everything. Don’t change till we’ve used up the planet and filled our bank accounts ---- so I am not saying that those who are part of the echo chamber are immoral - just being used.

 

[4elise]

We have heard all your hogwash before. There are many thousands of scientists who say you are wrong. I think you are the kool-aid drinker. If you want to help the poor, then do so. No one is stopping you. But stop with all the nonsense about man-made global warming. It is a lie and nothing you say will change that fact. Period. It is time for you to wake up from your environmental delusions. I will not stop eating meat. I will never become a vegetarian sissy. Scripture says that those who give up eating meat have departed from the faith. Besides meat is one of the healthiest things you can eat. The only way the lie of man-made global warming is a moral issue is in that people who have accepted this lie are now trying to get others to accept this lie. Go and help the poor, but stop trying to drag them into this nonsense. The earth has been cooling since at least 2002. I am sorry that this little inconvenient fact has gotten in the way of your crusade.
Peace.

My, what a cogent argument.

 

[4elise]

I give up, I’m taking a break. These folks can’t see the big picture. They should turn off their confounded “talk radio” and CNN/CNBC and read the letters, speeches and encyclicals that the church puts out. Do some research. Don’t just be a “USEFUL IDIOT” for big business. They don’t care about you. And they are clever to get you to resist the change that is inevitable.
sheesh

 

[walker_p]

My, what a cogent argument.

It sure is a lot more cogent than your repeated non sequiturs. If you are so concerned about the poor, then help them. Stop wasting time on the lie of man-made global warming and start helping people. Here is an idea for you: maybe you can lecture Jesus on what a sinner He was for eating meat.

 

[Ender]

I do not say one who disagrees is morally deficient - HOWEVER - I do believe that if one does agree that there is MMCC (even if not publicly) and one is unwilling to do anything about it - to make personal, community and national sacrifices - THEN this is making a morally negative choice

Climate change is a problem, either real or imaginary, but as far as acting morally on it … it doesn’t matter which is true. Your point is that if a person believes it to be a problem and chooses not to act he is behaving immorally. I accept that, but the statement is true of every problem we encounter. It is not the problem that makes our actions moral or immoral but our response to the problem; this is why it is incorrect to say that climate change is a moral issue.

If you accept that I truly believe that man is in no way responsible for global warming then I think you will agree that I am acting morally in my response to climate change. However, if you accept that my actions are moral, given that I take a position completely opposed to yours you cannot hold that climate change is a moral issue as there is no “moral” side to take. We are on opposite sides but are both acting morally.

I have tried in this discussion to point to what the CATHOLIC CHURCH is calling us to consider

The Church is calling us to be good stewards; that’s all. She is not telling us what we must believe or how we must act to accomplish that goal.

EVERYTHING I read from reliable sources SUPPORTS the impact of our actions on climate change

We obviously have a very different definition of what constitutes a reliable source, but let me comment on sources in general. A lot of people - and this would seem to include you - judge the accuracy of a claim not by the evidence supporting it but by the perceived reliability of the person making it. That is, claims tend to be accepted based on who makes them rather than on what they say. Al Massetti has posted links to any number of sources - including unknown blogs - where the authors make very reasoned arguments. It is the weight of the argument that should count, not the reputation of the person making it.

• sure, I too can find blogs galore that do not think it is real - of course - it becomes an echo chamber of those who have come to believe what the powerful interests have convinced them

It really doesn’t matter if Big Oil has subsidized everyone who writes against AGW; what matters is whether what they say is true. You do not defeat an argument by demonizing the person who makes it.

Ender

 

[4elise]

It sure is a lot more cogent than your repeated non sequiturs. If you are so concerned about the poor, then help them. Stop wasting time on the lie of man-made global warming and start helping people. Here is an idea for you: maybe you can lecture Jesus on what a sinner He was for eating meat.

Right, wow … again, really helpful to the discussion.

MANY, MANY, MANY people who have the science to back it up - do believe that the climate is changing AND there is a direct correlation to industrialization.

As for helping the poor - the impact of climate change will have the greatest impact on the poor - so YES I believe my actions to reduce my personal contribution is EXACTLY WHAT I SHOULD BE DOING.

TODAY - IN THE UNITED STATES - REMOVING MY CONSUMPTION OF MEAT/DAIRY/EGGS - GIVEN THE WAY MEAT, DAIRY, EGGS ARE PRODUCED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC is a great way to REDUCE MY PERSONAL IMPACT - 2000 years ago as Jesus walked the earth the concept of raising animals for meat on a factory farm, or fishing the oceans and seas with complete disregard for the environment was unheard of… we are to be stewards of God’s great gift of all creation - not to use it up with disregard for the future.

So 1 + 1 = 2 ---------------------- I reduce my impact on climate change, because I want to make a contribution to help the most vulnerable - seems like something JESUS WOULD CERTAINLY APPROVE OF DON’T YOU THINK? Or don’t you think?

 

[4elise]

Climate change is a problem, either real or imaginary, but as far as acting morally on it … it doesn’t matter which is true. Your point is that if a person believes it to be a problem and chooses not to act he is behaving immorally. I accept that, but the statement is true of every problem we encounter. It is not the problem that makes our actions moral or immoral but our response to the problem; this is why it is incorrect to say that climate change is a moral issue.

I have never said anything different.

If you accept that I truly believe that man is in no way responsible for global warming then I think you will agree that I am acting morally in my response to climate change.

Again, I have never said anything different.

However, if you accept that my actions are moral, given that I take a position completely opposed to yours you cannot hold that climate change is a moral issue as there is no “moral” side to take. We are on opposite sides but are both acting morally.

Agreed

The Church is calling us to be good stewards; that’s all. She is not telling us what we must believe or how we must act to accomplish that goal.

Agreed

We obviously have a very different definition of what constitutes a reliable source, but let me comment on sources in general. A lot of people - and this would seem to include you - judge the accuracy of a claim not by the evidence supporting it but by the perceived reliability of the person making it. That is, claims tend to be accepted based on who makes them rather than on what they say. Al Massetti has posted links to any number of sources - including unknown blogs - where the authors make very reasoned arguments. It is the weight of the argument that should count, not the reputation of the person making it.

Here is where we disagree ----

(1) I believe that many people seek out sources that confirm a belief they already hold - one that does not challenge them to make changes in their lives - and conveniently - there are MANY blogs galore that support the point that climate change is not the result of our actions, so relax, you don’t have to do anything ---- a much easier position.

(2) I believe that ‘Consider the source’ must be how we evaluate information - who are really the experts, how many other experts agree with them, and YES what is their motivation for disseminating the information.

(3) I believe evaluating the information to the best of our ability is what I have done, and assume you have done as well - but since you give no more weight to a given source, it would be easier to agree with those who claim ‘it ain’t so’.

It really doesn’t matter if Big Oil has subsidized everyone who writes against AGW; what matters is whether what they say is true. You do not defeat an argument by demonizing the person who makes it.
Ender

It is not in demonizing the ‘person’ but rather in questioning their motivation - something that those who deny MMCC seem very comfortable doing. I.e the entire rant against Al Gore —

CONSIDERING THE SOURCE - is the point of this thread -
the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change is a source I value - and one you seem comfortable discounting.
The USCCB is a source I value, along with all the other Catholic partners of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change

You may disagree with Man Made Climate Change - and therefore you take no actions to address this - I agree that you are then acting morally - however if one does not wish to consider the possibility, closes oneself off to information that may call them to make sacrifices - then I do believe they are acting immorally.

 

[Contarini]

I
I don’t think God would create us, and then by our very existence, cause the destruction of the earth.

No one is saying that. Our existence is not the problem. Our sinful behavior is the problem. Rev. 11:18 speaks of God “destroying those who destroy the earth” by their sin. In fact, that’s the theme of much of that book–God’s judgment on human sin taking the form of what could be described as ecological catastrophes in large part. Of course I know that a literal approach to apocalyptic literature is misguided. I am not claiming that Revelation is necessarily talking about ecological catastrophe. But there is certainly nothing about Revelation’s account, or the teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition more generally, that is *incompatible *with our sin bringing about such a catastrophe.

Furthermore, I think that the outright “destruction of the earth” is relatively unlikely. What’s a lot more likely is that human beings (and other living creatures) will endure great suffering because of our wanton exploitation of God’s good creation. And again, that is very much in keeping with the message of Scripture warning of God’s judgments.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

We have heard all your hogwash before. There are many thousands of scientists who say you are wrong. I think you are the kool-aid drinker. If you want to help the poor, then do so. No one is stopping you. But stop with all the nonsense about man-made global warming. It is a lie and nothing you say will change that fact. Period. It is time for you to wake up from your environmental delusions. I will not stop eating meat. I will never become a vegetarian sissy. Scripture says that those who give up eating meat have departed from the faith.

By the same interpretation, you have to interpret that same passage as a condemnation of celibacy. And in fact that’s how anti-Catholics do interpret it.

But clearly that’s not what it’s talking about. It’s attacking Gnostic heretics who denied the goodness of the material world. It’s irrelevant to the present discussion–in fact it’s the anti-environmentalists who are closest to Gnosticism in their disregard for every aspect of God’s creation except for the human soul.

Edwin

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“Watermelons” = green on the outside and red on the inside.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the environmental movement became a haven for apologists for the Soviet Union in particular and for Communism in particular.

Always good to know the history of the enemy.

Save-the-planet inevitably leads to the policy of eugenics. Is that what some of you want?

 

[Ender]

4elise:

It is not in demonizing the ‘person’ but rather in questioning their motivation

My point, which this comment seems to confirm, is that what makes this a moral issue to you is your belief that what motivates others is some form of moral deficiency - laziness, greed, indifference … but “questioning their motivation” is improper as that is something you cannot know. You have a positive obligation to give people the benefit of the doubt - which is the opposite of questioning their motivation. Even if your judgment is valid, however, it still doesn’t make climate change a moral issue; it is merely an issue about which the morality of any actions we take is determined exclusively by personal motivation. The nature of the issue adds nothing whatever in determining the morality of someone’s actions in response to it. If I am a shoplifter I have acted immorally … does that mean shopping is a moral issue?

You may disagree with Man Made Climate Change - and therefore you take no actions to address this - I agree that you are then acting morally

By definition this means that climate change is not a moral issue since people can take completely opposite actions (as you and I have) and both be acting morally. Such a situation is definitely not true with something that truly is a moral issue … e.g. abortion.

Ender

 

[4elise]

My point, which this comment seems to confirm, is that what makes this a moral issue to you is your belief that what motivates others is some form of moral deficiency - laziness, greed, indifference … but “questioning their motivation” is improper as that is something you cannot know. You have a positive obligation to give people the benefit of the doubt - which is the opposite of questioning their motivation. Even if your judgment is valid, however, it still doesn’t make climate change a moral issue; it is merely an issue about which the morality of any actions we take is determined exclusively by personal motivation. The nature of the issue adds nothing whatever in determining the morality of someone’s actions in response to it. If I am a shoplifter I have acted immorally … does that mean shopping is a moral issue?

Thank you for allowing me to once again attempt to clarify what I am trying to say - obviously not clearly…

It is the motivation of those who promulgate false information for their own financial purposes - in my opinion that is the oil companies are doing - therefore they are acting immorally - and I believe that by their actions I am well within reason to make that assessment - ***but not of those who believe that information. ***

And yes - I do believe it is a moral issue if I believe my actions will hurt others and I do it anyway. If I believe that my actions contribute to climate change, and this will have a negative impact on others I am compelled by my faith to do something about it. Would you agree with that?

Now, if one only believes they can’t do anything to impact climate change BECAUSE it would require changes in their lives - perhaps that individual may want to consider WHY they are more comfortable believing that rather than considering the possibilities - but again not immoral

By definition this means that climate change is not a moral issue since people can take completely opposite actions (as you and I have) and both be acting morally. Such a situation is definitely not true with something that truly is a moral issue … e.g. abortion.
Ender

If you feel that the use of the term ‘moral’ is being misused here - what would you see replace it? I must act in a way that I believe reflects what I have learned for the common good - and this compels me to act - **I believe this is a moral duty for ME **- you do not believe the same thing and therefore you do not act in the same way - THEREFORE, I would not say you are being immoral - because you have reasoned, not based on laziness, greed or indifference that your actions have no impact — what word would you chose instead of morality do offer clarity here?

 

[4elise]

Always good to know the history of the enemy.

Save-the-planet inevitably leads to the policy of eugenics. Is that what some of you want?

Eugenics is not something I support. In fact I support sacrifice that will help sustain life on remote islands in the Pacific, that will help farmers in Asia and Africa and elsewhere, preserve natural habitats in Latin America for indigenous peoples - I support action that works against man made climate change to help PEOPLE LIVE FULL LIVES