The 'greenest' Pope in history

[Bill_Cherry]

With Big Daddy’s stand on the environment. Why are some Catholics still claiming that climate change is a conspiracy of the liberal wack jobs? There is a thread here devoted entirely to the last encyclical he gave. Personally I am pleased. I feel somewhat vindicated. Care of the planet has always been on the Catholic agenda. Now it is being endorsed by none other than the Holy Father himself. What could be cooler than that?

 

[Becks]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that St. Peter’s “carbon footprint” was probably pretty low.

 

[ahollars]

I could care less…

Okay, maybe I care some. I am all for conservation, and self-denial of the excesses of society.

However, I have little respect for people who actually believe that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that must be regulated. Global warming is loosing credibility, so now the moniker is “climate change”. Our world is supposed to fluctuate and be in a constantly changing state. There is no ideal condition to aspire to, since we’ve only been keeping track of the weather on a scientifically reliable basis for the last couple of centuries. Carbon occurs naturally in the air without our help, and it’s necessary for plant life. More of it will make them grow faster, stronger, and healthier, and according to the tree-huggers, that’s exactly what we need anyways.

Everything else, I’m all for it.

 

[rpp]

With Big Daddy’s stand on the environment. Why are some Catholics still claiming that climate change is a conspiracy of the liberal wack jobs? There is a thread here devoted entirely to the last encyclical he gave. Personally I am pleased. I feel somewhat vindicated. Care of the planet has always been on the Catholic agenda. Now it is being endorsed by none other than the Holy Father himself. What could be cooler than that?

Catholics are not the only ones who assert that there is no proof of anthropogenic global warming/climate change or whatever buzz word is popular. People make this assertion principly becaue there is not proof of anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

Now if you want clean water, clean air, and renewable energy, fine, Those are good and laudable goals and reflect proper care and stewardship of the Earth which God gave Man dominion over. But when the Al Gore groupies start inventing fairy tales and ridiculous doomsday scenarios to make their point, they lose sensible people are are left with the extremists or the innocent who have been duped. To these extremists I would simply say, “Since you have to lie to make your point, your point is not worth being made. Stop lying and people will start listening.”

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Catholics are not the only ones who assert that there is no proof of anthropogenic global warming/climate change or whatever buzz word is popular. People make this assertion principly becaue there is not proof of anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

**I’ll go along with that. And for my fellow ‘wacky greenies’-The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html#ixzz0NNBbzcTQ**

Now if you want clean water, clean air, and renewable energy, fine, Those are good and laudable goals and reflect proper care and stewardship of the Earth which God gave Man dominion over. But when the Al Gore groupies start inventing fairy tales and ridiculous doomsday scenarios to make their point, they lose sensible people are are left with the extremists or the innocent who have been duped. To these extremists I would simply say, “Since you have to lie to make your point, your point is not worth being made. Stop lying and people will start listening.”

And again I will point the others to
“Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation” Paragragh 48b “Caritas in veritate”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html.

 

[Marfran]

“Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn’t misuse it.” Pope John Paul II

I completely agree, don’t misuse it rpp!

 

[mapleoak]

With Big Daddy’s stand on the environment. Why are some Catholics still claiming that climate change is a conspiracy of the liberal wack jobs?

Because it is, just as before it, global warming. Since global warming has been observed to be false, a new, novel, and nebulous idea of ‘climate change’ had to be introduced. Imagine a world with a perpetually changing climate!

There is a thread here devoted entirely to the last encyclical he gave. Personally I am pleased. I feel somewhat vindicated. Care of the planet has always been on the Catholic agenda. Now it is being endorsed by none other than the Holy Father himself. What could be cooler than that?

Yes care of the land, earth, and universe is our responsibility, to the extent that it is within our control and ability to have an effect. There is no moral obligation to take control over the changing climate of the earth, nor the obligation to believe that any such normal variances in the climate taking place is something caused by man. There is legitimate dispute as to man’s effect on climate change.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Because it is, just as before it, global warming. Since global warming has been observed to be false, a new, novel, and nebulous idea of ‘climate change’ had to be introduced. Imagine a world with a perpetually changing climate!

Yes care of the land, earth, and universe is our responsibility, to the extent that it is within our control and ability to have an effect. There is no moral obligation to take control over the changing climate of the earth, nor the obligation to believe that any such normal variances in the climate taking place is something caused by man. There is legitimate dispute as to man’s effect on climate change.

I refer you to this post. #696

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5550054#post5550054

 

[mapleoak]

I refer you to this post. #696

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5550054#post5550054

And I refer you to

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4904400#post4904400

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4908351#post4908351

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4916040#post4916040

Note it is frustrating when no one supplies credible and verifiable data to back up the assertion of man’s contribution to global warming, cooling, or climate change.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

And I refer you to

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4904400#post4904400

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4908351#post4908351

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4916040#post4916040

Note it is frustrating when no one supplies credible and verifiable data to back up the assertion of man’s contribution to global warming, cooling, or climate change.

**I have already conceded in a previous thread,…at least as to whether it is a moral issue or not. As for humanities effects on the environment…:shrug:I will pay attention to the thread for a while and absorb the information. I am not finished with the issue. I am just taking a short break. I will admit, however, that I am being forced to reexamine my position.**It is very humbling…

 

[rpp]

I completely agree, don’t misuse it rpp!

Sadly, you do not take your own advice.

I have not had any contact with you since I had to eject you from the groups I manage because you could not stay within the bounds of charity. Clearly, you still cannot post charitably and you ptove that I was correct in removing you. I did nothing to provike this personal attack so what does that say about you?

Keep away from me.

 

[tjm190]

With Big Daddy’s stand on the environment. Why are some Catholics still claiming that climate change is a conspiracy of the liberal wack jobs? There is a thread here devoted entirely to the last encyclical he gave. Personally I am pleased. I feel somewhat vindicated. Care of the planet has always been on the Catholic agenda. Now it is being endorsed by none other than the Holy Father himself. What could be cooler than that?

I wouldn’t say conspiracy, just an example of what happens when you let politics poison science.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Sadly, you do not take your own advice.

I have not had any contact with you since I had to eject you from the groups I manage because you could not stay within the bounds of charity. Clearly, you still cannot post charitably and you ptove that I was correct in removing you. I did nothing to provike this personal attack so what does that say about you?

Keep away from me.

ooh, drama. I love drama…



:wave:Hi, Marfran!

 

[Bill_Cherry]

**I have already conceded in a previous thread,…at least as to whether it is a moral issue or not. As for humanities effects on the environment…:shrug:I will pay attention to the thread for a while and absorb the information. I am not finished with the issue. I am just taking a short break. I will admit, however, that I am being forced to reexamine my position.**It is very humbling…

I wouldn’t say conspiracy, just an example of what happens when you let politics poison science.

 

[alveolate]

i am appalled at how it is still “controversial”: the truth about global warming is a practical consensus in the scientific community afaik. the minority position *against *it is the controversial one - tainted with accusations of bias due to funding from Big Oil, etc. this is probably the only area which the left is getting it right.

here are a few links for those who have been corrupted into thinking the truth as untruth:
ipcc.ch/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
11thhouraction.com/seethefilm
climatecrisis.net/thescience/

the shrinking of the polar ice caps and melting of glaciers also probably demonstrate the most dramatic evidence of global warming.
peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3024&section=8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

it is also no surprise that the Church considers the environment part of social responsibility - we are stewards of the Earth (Gen 1:26).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching#Care_for_God.27s_creation

it is not just our responsibility to care for the planet, it is also a scientifically proven necessity - an apocalypse prophesied by scientific data is at hand. please don’t say it is not proven: **anthropogenic global warming is already proven **- the only disagreement now is to how large an extent. note: the extent is already large. just how large, whether global warming has not already entered an unstoppable feedback loop, and how much time before that happens, continuing at present rates.

 

[Doug50]

I’m all in favor of protecting the planet (I think there’s too many people now)…but you know what? Protecting the planet isn’t going to happen. This whole argument about global warming is pointless…not because it is or isn’t true…but because mankind is not going to change its habbits and stop pumping CO2. The only thing that’s going to stop CO2 emmisions is fossil fuel depletion.

Without those fossil fuels most of the world’s population starves. So when is comes to staving off starvation or CO2 I think the former goal will win out over the later one.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

I’m all in favor of protecting the planet (I think there’s too many people now)…but you know what? Protecting the planet isn’t going to happen. This whole argument about global warming is pointless…not because it is or isn’t true…but because mankind is not going to change its habbits and stop pumping CO2. The only thing that’s going to stop CO2 emmisions is fossil fuel depletion.

Without those fossil fuels most of the world’s population starves. So when is comes to staving off starvation or CO2 I think the former goal will win out over the later one.

Oh, c’mon, man! Have a little faith!

 

[Doug50]

Oh, c’mon, man! Have a little faith!

Oh I have faith . It’s just that my faith in the future belongs to God, and not in some belief that man can solve all of man’s problems. I believe we are at a historical turning point in human history. The 20th centure’s technological advances were made possible by cheap and abundent petroleum. Well, petroleum may still be abundent but cheap is going a way and the ability to get it out of the ground at the rates demanded by the modern world is going away too.

World oil consumption, today, averages 82-83 million barrels per day. Before the recession it was ~87 million barrels per day. The EIA projects global consumption will rise to 118 million barrels per day by 2030. Assuming 85 million barrels per day let’s do a little visualization. What does 85 million barrels of daily oil demand look like, a barrel of oil is 42 gallons? Since everyone knows what a 55 gallon steel drum looks like, I’ll use drums to illistrate:

(85,000,000 x 42 gal) / 55 gal = 64,909,090 steel drums consumed and need to run the modern world.

Since a steel drum is 3 feet tall, how many miles long would a pipeline be if we laid all those drums end to end?
(64,909,090 x 3’) / 5.280’ in a mile = 36,880 miles long. That’s enough steel drums to encircle the earth 1 1/2 times…every day.

Since the volume of oil in this imaginary pipeline is being replaced…every day, how fast would the oil have to travel in a 24 hour period to go from inlet to outlet?
(36,880 / 24hr) / 768mph speed of sound = 2…that is Mach 2 or twice the speed of sound.

At 85 million barrels per day, how many times could you encircle the earth with 55 gallon steel drums in a year’s time?
(36,880 x 365days) / 24,901 mile circumference of the earth = 540 times.

That’s how much relatively cheap oil (a gallon of gasoline produces the equivolent of 500 manhours worth of work for only $2.50) is needed today to feed the mankind and keep the modern world running. Who in their right mind believes mankind will replace even half that volume using renewable bio fuels? I mean, that many steel drums is a heck of a lot of corn oil pumping at mach speeds 24/7 through a 22" pipeline. So if humans are forced to choose between hunger and CO2 I think CO2 will fall on deaf ears.

Now get this: The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2008 conducted an engineering study to determine the depletion rate on global production. The study was on 800 fields that produce 2/3rd of the world’s oil supply. That’s the sample. Their conclusion was the global oil industry must bring on line the equivolent of a new Saudi Arabia every 5 years just to offset depletion and keep global production at current capacity. However, to not only offset that decline rate but to meet the expected demand increases from developing countries (think China and India) 6 new Saudi Arabias would need to be put on line between now and 2030 - that’s 6 SA over the next 20 years. 20yr / 6 = a new Saudi Arabia every 3.5 years. The next 20 years are going to be a very interesting time to be living in.

 

[alveolate]

let’s assume your data is accurate.

it however, still does not simply follow that humans will not “trade hunger for CO2”. that is - imho - a gross simplification. the fact is also that green technology is growing. now i do not know how your data works, but i’m kinda certain it does not take into account the growing “footprint” of green technology. granted, not all green technology is fully independent of petroleum, but remarkable reductions are at least a positive step. the hybrid car, for e.g. (rather a poor green tech example, really) is already an estimated 4-10x more fuel-efficient than normal cars (the broad range compares with vehicles of all mpg consumption levels). and let us not forget that the starving poor have very meagre carbon output - it is those who are not hungry who most ought to decrease their carbon output. this is where your data could use more detail.

granted, the biggest steps forward would still be things like the US committing to the Kyoto Protocol (or a similar framework), China managing its insane growth in a green manner, and Big Oil proactively divesting into green tech - which may seem out of the reach of mere mortals. even then, going green is very much a mindset which the man on the street too, should get into. household waste still contributes to roughly 1/3 of all waste; consumer choice -when amassed - can motivate corporations to respond to where the profit is flowing.

we may not have huge powers - but it is grossly unfair to say we have no power. it would also be very silly to simply give up at this stage without a fight. in God we trust, yes, but also in your fellow man, please! the best way to acquit each other is to condemn our ability to act; and once acquitted, we are “free” from action. that, my friend, is the point of no return imho. when we believe we won’t matter. when we concede to the larger, malignant, impersonal forces.

it all starts by sounding hopeless. which is why despairing is a sin!

 

[Doug50]

There isn’t enough farm land to grow enough bio mass to run those cars. Just the amount of water to replace 30% of the US gasoline requires the amount of water that flows over Niagra Falls every year. At least according to…
Bill Reinert, Toyota’s alternative fuel manger on ethanol
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2201199802681775303
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2558276641904882805

It took Toyota 10 years to sell its first one millionth Prius. There are 250 million cars on US highways. If Toyota could sell one million Priuses per year it’d take 250 years to replace the US auto fleet with Toyota’s hybrid car.

And talking about the US…The US uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. Of that 20 million 10 million goes to fuel highway/roadway transportation. Yet we only produce 5 million domestically so up to 15 million is imported into the US every day. Get the picture? All things remaining equal, if every car, truck, SUV, and motorcycle were outlawed…close all filling stations and vacate all highways with combustion driven engines…we’d eleminate 10 million out of our daily consumption. But because the US only produces 5 million per day we’d still have to import an additional 5 million barrels, or half the daily consumption. Either our politicians are stupid or they are lying about energy independence to get votes.

Prof Rick Smalley put it this way in a guest lecture at Columbia University: If he could put his lefthand behind his back and using his righthand, pro growth pro energy, repulican hand to flip a switch that’d trun on a gigawatt of power (a 1,000 megawatts). He’d have to flip that switch every day for 27 years to have the amount of energy the world will need by 2050. And for world wide peace and prosperity it has to be CHEAP.

Here’s that lecture.
Prof Rick Smalley - Our Energy Challenge
Columbia University Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center presents “Our Energy Challenge” by Nobel laureate Professor Richard Smalley of Rice University.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4626573768558163231
Power point presentation Smalley is using in the above lecture
smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia20030923.pdf