Putting Catholic faith into action on climate change

[4elise]

I don’t mean to ‘rain on your parade’, but I still have a few points I’d like to address.
I have no problem with going green or cutting back on smog. I think I heard the new Chevy volt gets up to 230mpg? That’s a good move toward cutting back smog. I have recently even contemplated trying organic foods and am in the process of creating my own version of vegetarianism which I will call “vegetablism” (only because I lack vegetables and consume way too much potato, processed foods, and flour). I do these things because I value Gods creation which consists partly of the earth and my body. Yes my body is Gods creation. So I should do what I can to preserve and protect these parts of “creation”. By doing these things I believe I am doing “Morally” good as everyone agrees…
My concern lies in the Faith of Catholics who have been advised through some Catholic
Bishops that they are allowed to vote through scientifically logical and statistically proven facts. And through this, the split has begun which allows Catholics to overlook the abortion issue. In a sense, allowing a moral perspective to voting for the pro-abortionists. How damaging yet underminingly political this is. How pre-meditated and sickening. The only good that will come from this will be the final ‘watering-down’ of the church. And that ‘good’ will serve none but the enemy. Evil… —those who hate the Church… And want to own it.
The irony is that not all of science even claims MMCC. It’s Al Gore and his “gaia” lovers who through the U.N. and the IPCC along with their fascination with globalization that came up with and keep pushing these solutions that propose more and more human control. Based on “Gaia theory” we need to “**model human activities after the living systems of our planet; the concept offers lessons for the design of economic, energy, social and governmental systems.” **gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm
So as you can surely understand, basing human activity on living “systems of our planet”, and not after Jesus is evil…
A good question to ask yourself is: is it possible to be good Catholics who believe in Faith, and also believe the theories of science and its fact only mentality which by nature denies the very existence of God? Especially when it means steering away from preventing obvious EUGENICS type acts such as abortion? Yes abortion is the beginning stage of eugenics. The killing of the unwanted babies. That’s what it is!
I understand I cannot change some people’s minds on the issue. That is not my objective. My objective lies with helping those who are questioning their faith and their future roles in the world. I oppose the attempt in trying to persuade people to put their faith into science, who for their own personal reasons haven’t done so prior to this thread. So in a sense, I am steering the opposite direction of any attempts to convert ones faith into a faith in Catholocism watered down with science. We all need to question: can we really have faith in science and Catholicism? Will Catholicism continue to supersede science? Is everyone capable of understanding this? Is it possible to sustain this imbalance for generations to come? Do we understand that there should be an imbalance, where our faith outweighs science? Or are we just setting ourselves up for future problems? We must consider the future. Are we inadvertently destroying blind faith in God?

My final thought: It’s okay to be healthy and ‘green’, as long as you keep your faith God and the Holy Catholic Church first! Its okay to have blind faith and still be ‘green’! Its okay to deny things in the world that you disagree with. And by denying things you don’t have to feel guilty. Or immoral. Because you do it in the name of God.
Please don’t hate me!

TEPO - I could certainly not hate you - I do at times have problems understanding you however… but that is probably me and not you…

So let me see if I can go through your post and see if I understand what you are saying.

1. Abortion needs to be a primary motivational factor when someone considers who they will vote for in the United States. *** Agreed.*** The Bishops gave us a beautiful resource that Catholics can use when preparing to vote. (I don’t know what you were referring to.) An informed conscious is necessary, and we are called to participate and vote based upon this informed conscious. faithfulcitizenship.org/
2. We should keep our faith in God and the workings of God through the Church as the first thing that motivates our action. Agreed

It is not however science or the Church.

From the CCC

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

It is after all God’s creation that we want to work to preserve - there may be some who are working toward the same goal who have other motivation - but that is not ours.

Those who are working toward reducing man’s impact on climate change, if they are doing so because they too believe it is God’s creation or not - we are all working towards the same goal, right? It is as CATHOLICS that we bring the prospective that has been stated here over and over from the web site, Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - and this is what is unique:

*  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

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Do people understand that there is a deadly difference between government-mandated curly light bulbs and personal use thereof?

And that the end result of all save-the-planet crusades is always, always eugenics?

I understand what you are saying. I do not agree with it completely. I do not think it has to necessarily end up with eugenics. Not as long as good people stand up and vote and sign petitions and keep fighting the good fight.

I also understand that people who listen to the sensationalists of the conservative media are in reality mere parrots. It’s not their fault. they simply are allowing big business to tell them what to believe. Because that is the sector that is effected the most by the green movement. It interferes with their right to free enterprise. Personally I think that IF people where inclined to really stop being selfish and place the needs of everyone else on the planet first (as opposed to selfish ‘best interests’) then the free market would naturally go green out of necessity. But, the ‘world’ keeps us divided by placing two opposing political platforms which cause us to be confused about which issues are more important. I go with the Vatican. I am Pro-life and Environmentally active. Because that is the message from the Vatican.

 

[TEPO]

Catholic Coalition on Climate Change: catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - and this is what is unique:

*  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

I understand that the Bishops have asked us to address the issues of Prudence, Poverty, and the Common Good. I believe that I can contribute in addressing these issues by narrowing down the argument a little more…

A. These are things we agree upon:

1. prevention of abortion is a primary Catholic goal regardless of political motives or affiliations.
2. We should keep our faith in God & the Church as our sole motivating factor.
3. All scientific discovery are actually discoveries from God, because God has created all things.
4. Those working to protect Gods Creation whether through prevention of MMCC/greenhouse gasses or prevention of SMOG/pollution, are both doing what they think is morally right. And are in accordance with their Catholic faith.
5. It is Catholics who spread the message given by the Catholic Coalition on C.C.
6. That bringing this message (as you have) will result in the Catholic community answering Gods call to be faithful Stewards.

B. These are things we don’t agree upon:

1. If MMCC is science
2. If MMCC is real
3. Taking any actions on bad science confuses Catholics and causes them to question their faith.
4. That the poor will benefit from the Catholic call to action
5. That the poor are the absolute most important factor in this Call to Action.

C. These are things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet:

1. That believing in MMCC (because it is not science) is damaging to many peoples Catholic faith.
2. If pushing for the urgency of MMCC will prove damaging in the Catholic fight against abortion.
3. If MMCC can be beaten or fixed.
4. If Gaia worship is what’s really behind MMCC
   5)If the Church is inadvertently allowing politics to undermine its judgment.
5. If the Bishops have inadvertently sort of pushed Catholics to become more apt to vote for a political party that Catholics didn’t typically vote for.
6. That the Catholic response in “answering Gods Call to be Faithful Stewards” will work towards preventing MMCC or decline the whole idea.

I am sorry, but there are still many unanswered questions. Please feel free to respond. I hope that we all as Catholics can acknowledge these problems rationally. I believe they are legitimate and deserve attention. Thank you.

 

[TEPO]

I’ll start things off on the “issues we dont agree upon”…
particularly points 1 and 2…
MMCC is not science it is psuedoscience. It is not real…

the following is from: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

“As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
That’s pretty much how it goes with this debate. Someone presents some evidence that things are not exactly as Al Gore claims, and they are immediately attacked as being loonie or just plain nuts.”

the following is from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Psuedoscienceseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.

—How to identify psuedoscience—

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4. Absence of progress
5. Personalization of issues
6. Use of misleading language
7. Lack of scientific consensus

I think MMCC is guilty of 1, 2, 3, 4, and definantly 7

 

[4elise]

I understand that the Bishops have asked us to address the issues of Prudence, Poverty, and the Common Good. I believe that I can contribute in addressing these issues by narrowing down the argument a little more…

A. These are things we agree upon:

1. prevention of abortion is a primary Catholic goal regardless of political motives or affiliations.
2. We should keep our faith in God & the Church as our sole motivating factor.
3. All scientific discovery are actually discoveries from God, because God has created all things.
4. Those working to protect Gods Creation whether through prevention of MMCC/greenhouse gasses or prevention of SMOG/pollution, are both doing what they think is morally right. And are in accordance with their Catholic faith.
5. It is Catholics who spread the message given by the Catholic Coalition on C.C.
6. That bringing this message (as you have) will result in the Catholic community answering Gods call to be faithful Stewards.

First - thanks for this well stated post - I feel like I understand your points much better than I have in our previous discussions.

I am glad that we do agree on the points 1 - 6

B. These are things we don’t agree upon:

1. If MMCC is science
2. If MMCC is real
3. Taking any actions on bad science confuses Catholics and causes them to question their faith.
4. That the poor will benefit from the Catholic call to action
5. That the poor are the absolute most important factor in this Call to Action.

If you do not believe that man’s actions have contributed to climate change then, yes I understand that we disagree. I see that if you believe this you may conclude that any action would be not be necessary, and that the action will not benefit the poor.

I do not understand #3 how bad science would confuse Catholics causing them to question their faith.

C. These are things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet:

1. That believing in MMCC (because it is not science) is damaging to many peoples Catholic faith.
2. If pushing for the urgency of MMCC will prove damaging in the Catholic fight against abortion.
3. If MMCC can be beaten or fixed.
4. If Gaia worship is what’s really behind MMCC
   5)If the Church is inadvertently allowing politics to undermine its judgment.
5. If the Bishops have inadvertently sort of pushed Catholics to become more apt to vote for a political party that Catholics didn’t typically vote for.
6. That the Catholic response in “answering Gods Call to be Faithful Stewards” will work towards preventing MMCC or decline the whole idea.
   I am sorry, but there are still many unanswered questions. Please feel free to respond. I hope that we all as Catholics can acknowledge these problems rationally. I believe they are legitimate and deserve attention. Thank you.

1. Don’t understand how believing in man made climate change could damage anyone’s faith? I realize this is a too obvious example, but something like believing that the moon goes around the earth, the earth goes around the sun - these are issues of science -
2. Don’t understand how working to address the issues of climate change could impact efforts to end abortion? Most people are involved in many things, one can work to end abortion, protest at Planned Parenthood, and make personal changes to one’s life style that can have a positive impact on climate change.
3. I believe that if man’s actions are impacting climate change, and we make changes to those actions, then we can have a positive impact.
4. Gaia worship may be an issue for some people - not for me. Caring for God’s gift of creation is what is my issue.
5. See… I don’t see the Church is being political, in fact just the opposite - the position of the church is so counter cultural, it isn’t advocating a specific action, but rather that the we address the problem from that really unique view, and again,
6. I don’t think the bishops are trying to influence anyone’s vote by calling us to look at this issue. But I do understand your concern on this point, and can see where that would be something you might question - I don’t agree with it however, because the Church has been working VERY hard to not align itself with either party (that is why I don’t belong to a party!)
7. a call to be good stewards leads to discussion, hopeully then followed by prudent action, keeping the needs of the poor at the heart of the discussion - not just the poor at home but the poor around the world.

Thanks for the respectful tone - hopefully we can continue to clarify our positions here!
Peace

 

[4elise]

I’ll start things off on the “issues we dont agree upon”…
particularly points 1 and 2…

Here we disagree as you say…
I believe it is real (and therefore believe I need to take action) - you don’t.

Peace

 

[TEPO]

1. Don’t understand how believing in man made climate change could damage anyone’s faith? I realize this is a too obvious example, but something like believing that the moon goes around the earth, the earth goes around the sun - these are issues of science -
2. Don’t understand how working to address the issues of climate change could impact efforts to end abortion? Most people are involved in many things, one can work to end abortion, protest at Planned Parenthood, and make personal changes to one’s life style that can have a positive impact on climate change.
3. I believe that if man’s actions are impacting climate change, and we make changes to those actions, then we can have a positive impact.
4. Gaia worship may be an issue for some people - not for me. Caring for God’s gift of creation is what is my issue.
5. See… I don’t see the Church is being political, in fact just the opposite - the position of the church is so counter cultural, it isn’t advocating a specific action, but rather that the we address the problem from that really unique view, and again,
6. I don’t think the bishops are trying to influence anyone’s vote by calling us to look at this issue. But I do understand your concern on this point, and can see where that would be something you might question - I don’t agree with it however, because the Church has been working VERY hard to not align itself with either party (that is why I don’t belong to a party!)
7. a call to be good stewards leads to discussion, hopeully then followed by prudent action, keeping the needs of the poor at the heart of the discussion - not just the poor at home but the poor around the world.

Thanks for the respectful tone - hopefully we can continue to clarify our positions here!
Peace

**Point well taken on post # 839. I should have started off on things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet.

Anyways, I would like to point out #’s 1 and 4, (in the section- things we havent quite agreed upon yet) since I believe they are directly related.**

1. That believing in MMCC (because it is not science) is damaging to many peoples Catholic faith.
2. If Gaia worship is what’s really behind MMCC

You have pointed out that you don’t understand how believing in MMCC can damage ones faith…
Please read post #:728 on page 49 of this thread…

The author states: “see the damage your ideologies/agendas are causing, in particular amongst young Catholics, who simply wish to go to mass to hear about all things Christ related- and not the environment?”
The author also states: “It’s the nonsense that both you and 4elise post which contributed to my fall from the RC”….
I personally don’t blame you, I think you are doing what you think is right. However I do think this is proof that a Catholic embracement of MMCC damages faith. Which leads me to point no. 4…

I seems like the previous authors concern developed right after I made the point that MMCC derives from Gaia worship. Which I believe was a fair and honest statement.
It is true that Al Gore was the leading American figure who placed MMCC out on the table for discussion. Al Gore is also VERY involved in the “Gaia theory”, which was invented by James lovelock who is a known pantheist. Lovelock, in fact, is one of the leading figures in the current pantheist movement. So in a sense, MMCC is an idea which derives from a religion that is anti-God. It makes sense to many scientists who believe that proven theories, statistics, and fact are true unless proven otherwise.
But it is a stretch to say that good science gave birth to the idea of MMCC. Rather it was Lovelock, and the pantheism movement. They have a lot of pull in NASA, Italian Gov., and IPCC. And apparently the U.N.,and Al Gore.
So it is damaging to Catholics faith I think because it waters down Catholocism with science. But not really science, but pantheism. Which is anti-God. This confuses catholics, and makes them question their faith.

I realize you and others may not see the connection. But the fact is that many Catholics do. And it is a bad thing, because it causes them to question their faith.

Please feel free to respond, I think this is important for all of us to understand!

 

[4elise]

**Point well taken on post # 839. I should have started off on things we haven’t quite agreed upon yet.

Anyways, I would like to point out #’s 1 and 4, (in the section- things we havent quite agreed upon yet) since I believe they are directly related.**

1. That believing in MMCC (because it is not science) is damaging to many peoples Catholic faith.
2. If Gaia worship is what’s really behind MMCC

You have pointed out that you don’t understand how believing in MMCC can damage ones faith…
Please read post #:728 on page 49 of this thread…

The author states: “see the damage your ideologies/agendas are causing, in particular amongst young Catholics, who simply wish to go to mass to hear about all things Christ related- and not the environment?”
The author also states: “It’s the nonsense that both you and 4elise post which contributed to my fall from the RC”….
I personally don’t blame you, I think you are doing what you think is right. However I do think this is proof that a Catholic embracement of MMCC damages faith. Which leads me to point no. 4…

I seems like the previous authors concern developed right after I made the point that MMCC derives from Gaia worship. Which I believe was a fair and honest statement.
It is true that Al Gore was the leading American figure who placed MMCC out on the table for discussion. Al Gore is also VERY involved in the “Gaia theory”, which was invented by James lovelock who is a known pantheist. Lovelock, in fact, is one of the leading figures in the current pantheist movement. So in a sense, MMCC is an idea which derives from a religion that is anti-God. It makes sense to many scientists who believe that proven theories, statistics, and fact are true unless proven otherwise.
But it is a stretch to say that good science gave birth to the idea of MMCC. Rather it was Lovelock, and the pantheism movement. They have a lot of pull in NASA, Italian Gov., and IPCC. And apparently the U.N.,and Al Gore.

I think the assumptions you make that leads you to the statements above makes it really impossible for us to have a reasoned dialogue - you are assigning some kind of ulterior motive to those who are speaking out about climate change and man’s role - and the need to take action to address it… like all things in the world, there will be those who try to capitalize for their own advancement (capitalism right?) this however doesn’t make it any less a reality - or any less of a need for action.

I have yet to hear at a Mass anything about the environment - and believe me I wouldn’t mind hearing about it in that context because I do make a connection to my faith and the need to respond to this - so I don’t know what young people you are concerned about? Where are people going to hear about Jesus and being inundated with information about climate change? And if they are HOW could it impact their faith negatively ?

So it is damaging to Catholics faith I think because it waters down Catholocism with science. But not really science, but pantheism. Which is anti-God. This confuses catholics, and makes them question their faith.

I realize you and others may not see the connection. But the fact is that many Catholics do. And it is a bad thing, because it causes them to question their faith.

Please feel free to respond, I think this is important for all of us to understand!

What I had previously posted from the Catechism said that faith and reason are both from God - we are living in the world (unless we have removed ourselves and joined a hermitage for prayer) As we live in the world we are to be light in the world today, bringing the UNIQUE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE to all problems we are currently facing today -

Some may be working to end MMCC for reasons that don’t come into line with our faith - but WE, as Catholics can be working for the same goal, but doing so with that special gift of faith - moderating the discussion, working to lead the way to insure that the poor are not neglected in the way the problems are to be addressed - and motivated to do so to care for God’s precious gift of Creation.

It is BECAUSE OF OUR CATHOLIC faith, not DESPITE it that we can make a difference.
Does that make sense?

 

[otjm]

I believe I have asked the question before, but I will ask it again.

Can any of you cite me to any peer reviewed studies which show to what degree man-made CO2 is impacting the environment? In other words, for the sum total of the projected amounts of CO2 created by man, to what degree does this impact global whatever Warming, cooling, take your pick.

Another way of asking: assume for the moment we have the amount of CO2 created by man quantified, and assuming it were to be reduced forthwith by 50%; what effect would that have on warming/cooling?

I have repeatedly heard that man is causing global warming (and it is now verified that the earth overall is cooling) but I have yet to hear a) what the difference would be in the alleged warming (alleged, since it is now cooling), and b) if we had warming (I accept we did) and we now have cooling (which is verified), and we are either at neutral additional CO2 load or increasing, why are we not continuing to warm?

And to what extent does the peer reviewed study recently released which shows that we have no adequate model to describe the heating and cooling impact of the oceans, and further the impact of the almost constant volcanic erruptions have on this discussion, other than to be dismissed by the Al Gore true believers?

All I see and hear in this argument is a tremendous amount of heat from the true believers; dismissal of scientifically based studies (e.g. sunspot activity and its cycle matching the cycle of heating and cooling); demonization of anyone having the temerity to question the new golden calf; tremendous political pressure, exerted through threats to future job security of those who question the golden calf ( I have spoken personally with climatologists who have been told bluntly that if they wished to have a future, get on board or at the minimum shut up), all coupled with the interesting change in the climate itself.

Anyone care to point me to the studies?

 

[TEPO]

I think the assumptions you make that leads you to the statements above makes it really impossible for us to have a reasoned dialogue

You think discussing the roots of MMCC and where it came from is irrelevent?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

TEPO makes an interesting point although slightly off kilter. Gaia worship, as proposed by pagans was a direct result of pagans looking for proof of the earth as a living organism. The Gaia Hypothesis was introduced by James Lovelock. I discovered it in the 80’s. i do not know exactly when he introduced the theory but I could look it up if I felt it was relevent. The theory proposes that the earth works similar to a living entity in that all of its parts serve a purpose in a symbiotic relationship. he adapted the name Gaia as a metaphor from the ancient Greek ( I think) goddess of the earth, similar to Demeter and such.

The fact the the modern neo-pagans latched on to the hypothesis is really coincidental. The symbiosis is a fact. This was the drive behind Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Az. It was an attempt to create a self sufficient unit for the eventual colonization of Mars. The project failed because they could not create a bubble that was sufficiently tight enough to keep the outside air out and the inside air in. nevertheless, It was fairly self sufficient.

 

[TEPO]

TEPO makes an interesting point although slightly off kilter.

**Maybe so, but it seems to effect the faith of Catholics, which is my concearn. I think I have an idea why. Please read… **green-agenda.com/gaia.html
All the following quotes come from this website.

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia?
Then her capacity for virgin birth is no miracle,
it is a role of Gaia since life began.
She is of this Universe and, conceivably,
a part of God. On Earth, she is the source
of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind
and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock , Ages of Gaia."

“Lovelock was also one of the first and most vocal proponents of the Global Warming theory. To a suspicious mind it may appear that controlling and eliminating CFC’s was a test case for the big prize, controlling and eliminating fossil fuels, thus removing the cause of Gaia’s pain –“

“Interestingly climatology was the first branch of science to actively endorse the Gaian theory that Earth was a single, self-regulating system. Steven Schneider, Professor of Climatology at Stanford, organised the first international scientific conference to discuss “the implications of Gaia.” It was Schneider who later became the most vocal climatologist supporting Global Warming and once famously stated “we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The Gaia hypothesis, absent the spiritual connotations, has now been accepted into mainstream science and renamed the Gaia Theory. It can be found in most environmental science textbooks.”

“Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Sounds like America and the IPCC are going down a slightly evil road.

 

[TEPO]

Referring to the Oregon Petition or (The Global Warming Petition Project)
oism.org/pproject/

—“This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.”—

 

[4elise]

Referring to the Oregon Petition or (The Global Warming Petition Project)
oism.org/pproject/

—“This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.”—

From the Petition Website we learn that various people can sign:

* A Civil Engineer can sign because they are "trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs."

* A Doctor can sign because they are "scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth."

* A Web Designer can sign "Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences [including computer science] are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis."

And yet the Petition Project has only 31000 signers after years of operation.

Why would you believe THIS and not the scientists whose science is peer reviewed and are part of the IPCC ?? Just because they agree with what you want to believe? The Oregon Project has been discredited ---- but of course if one wants to believe that, one won’t accept that.

 

[TEPO]

Why would you believe THIS and not the scientists whose science is peer reviewed and are part of the IPCC ?? Just because they agree with what you want to believe? The Oregon Project has been discredited ---- but of course if one wants to believe that, one won’t accept that.

Peer reviewed? The IPCC is way too involved with the U.N.
Read more…
arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/10/nobel-peace-prize-goes-to-al-gore-ipcc-for-work-on-climate-change.ars

“Most press accounts and governmental decisions focus less on the scientific bodies of the IPCC reports (which can run hundreds of pages), and more on the summaries for policy makers. These summary documents are meant to reduce the science to easy-to-digest statements about the key facts. Unfortunately, they’re hashed out at contentious meetings that include both scientists and diplomats from the UN membership and sometimes run all night before agreements are reached. In the end, the most commonly discussed pieces of IPCC reports are as much the product of diplomatic compromises as they are the product of the underlying science.”

But I cant believe how obvious it is that you are dancing around my main point… You really dont want to discuss GAIA do you? Or the fact that some Catholics are ‘falling-out’ of the faith due to the involvement with this New Age MMCC.

 

[4elise]

Peer reviewed? The IPCC is way too involved with the U.N.
Read more…
arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/10/nobel-peace-prize-goes-to-al-gore-ipcc-for-work-on-climate-change.ars

“Most press accounts and governmental decisions focus less on the scientific bodies of the IPCC reports (which can run hundreds of pages), and more on the summaries for policy makers. These summary documents are meant to reduce the science to easy-to-digest statements about the key facts. Unfortunately, they’re hashed out at contentious meetings that include both scientists and diplomats from the UN membership and sometimes run all night before agreements are reached. In the end, the most commonly discussed pieces of IPCC reports are as much the product of diplomatic compromises as they are the product of the underlying science.”

But I cant believe how obvious it is that you are dancing around my main point… You really dont want to discuss GAIA do you? Or the fact that some Catholics are ‘falling-out’ of the faith due to the involvement with this New Age MMCC.

I’m not trying to dance around this…*** I just don’t know any Catholics for whom their concern about MMCC is some form of Gaia new age thing, do you?*** The ones I know who are concerned are because like me, their faith and their reason calls us to act try to learn, to take personal action, etc… I think on the science, and whose opinion we value - we aren’t going to agree - so once again, I feel like TEPO we come to the point where I’ve explained to you my point as clearly as I can on each of these points, more than once…
God Bless,

 

[4elise]

I believe I have asked the question before, but I will ask it again.

Can any of you cite me to any peer reviewed studies which show to what degree man-made CO2 is impacting the environment? In other words, for the sum total of the projected amounts of CO2 created by man, to what degree does this impact global whatever Warming, cooling, take your pick.

Another way of asking: assume for the moment we have the amount of CO2 created by man quantified, and assuming it were to be reduced forthwith by 50%; what effect would that have on warming/cooling?

I have repeatedly heard that man is causing global warming (and it is now verified that the earth overall is cooling) but I have yet to hear a) what the difference would be in the alleged warming (alleged, since it is now cooling), and b) if we had warming (I accept we did) and we now have cooling (which is verified), and we are either at neutral additional CO2 load or increasing, why are we not continuing to warm?

And to what extent does the peer reviewed study recently released which shows that we have no adequate model to describe the heating and cooling impact of the oceans, and further the impact of the almost constant volcanic erruptions have on this discussion, other than to be dismissed by the Al Gore true believers?

All I see and hear in this argument is a tremendous amount of heat from the true believers; dismissal of scientifically based studies (e.g. sunspot activity and its cycle matching the cycle of heating and cooling); demonization of anyone having the temerity to question the new golden calf; tremendous political pressure, exerted through threats to future job security of those who question the golden calf ( I have spoken personally with climatologists who have been told bluntly that if they wished to have a future, get on board or at the minimum shut up), all coupled with the interesting change in the climate itself.

Anyone care to point me to the studies?

Perhaps these?

arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126?context=physics.ao-ph
350.org/understanding-350#8

And as part of the discussion - I think that many also point to the problems with methane - here: epa.gov/methane/

CAFO’s have contributed pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2367646

Conclusions
Immediate and far-reaching changes in current animal agriculture practices and consumption patterns are both critical and timely if GHGs from the farm animal sector are to be mitigated.

 

[Jean_1958]

Hi,

Here’s an official document (would be signed off by the Pope) from the Holy See deliveried to the UN regarding the Catholic Church’s position on global warming:

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html

Please keep in mind two things:

1. It does show the Catholic Church’s position regarding global warming and
2. It is not dogma of faith so a Catholic can disagree with it.

Peace,

Jean

 

[4elise]

Hi,

Here’s an official document (would be signed off by the Pope) from the Holy See deliveried to the UN regarding the Catholic Church’s position on global warming:

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html

Please keep in mind two things:

1. It does show the Catholic Church’s position regarding global warming and
2. It is not dogma of faith so a Catholic can disagree with it.

Peace,

Jean

Thanks Jean, I really appreciate your posting this… the ending paragraph is so hopeful

Remedies are not beyond our ingenuity, but we should however be careful not to choose a path that will make things worse, especially for the poor. We cannot simply uninvent the modern world, but there is still time to use technology and education to promote universally sustainable development before it is too late.

I know for me, this is the issue where putting two and two together, I fell it is my responsibility to abstain from meat, dairy and eggs to do MY part - due to the contribution of factory farming to the problem. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art…?artid=2367646

Conclusions
Immediate and far-reaching changes in current animal agriculture practices and consumption patterns are both critical and timely if GHGs from the farm animal sector are to be mitigated.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps these?

arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126?context=physics.ao-ph
350.org/understanding-350#8

And as part of the discussion - I think that many also point to the problems with methane - here: epa.gov/methane/

CAFO’s have contributed pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2367646

When the 350 Org cites “I invented the Internet” Al Gore as an expert, I stop reading.

And the Humane Society has enough baggage over animal rights that I am not going there either.

As to the first article you cited; 2 major issues not dealt with - the influence of the oceans (asnd living on the West Coast, we are perhaps more aware of the effects of El Nino and La Nina than others) and the influence of volcanic activity.

Again, neither addresses two issues that could simply turn all of the figures upside down. Further, given that they do not address other issues which appear to be having a significant impact on global weather, they are based on a presumption implied that the cause of global warming is essentially impacted by man’s activity. Given that many of the suggestions made (i.e. massive changes to our production of electricity, without any means of replacing the losses) would risk sending us back potentitally to a pre-industrial period, and given that other scientific papers are bringing into serious question the degree to which man’s activity impacts the issue of temperature change, perhaps a little less “the sky is falling because of man” would be warranted.

And then tereare thsoe darned sun cycles.

You first article says that elimination of coal burning “may” reduce CO2 levels. “may” is an interesting term, when one considers the impact of a massive drop in electrical production.