To the global warming nay-sayers

[Gordon_Sims]

Well, you can’t blindly sign on for anything that calls itself environmental any more than you can blindly sign on for anything that calls itself Christian. So even if you believe the science is plausible, that’s not the same as saying it is absolutely compelling or that the proposals being bandied about are the right course. Those are different things.

Some things (which for charity’s sake will go nameless) are like a Grape Nut, which despite its name is not a grape, and yet also not a nut…

The thing is, though, even if we cherry-pick like the GW adherents and only look at the studies that support AGW–even the exaggerated and fabricated ones–and ignore all the studies (and common sense) that argue against it, that still ignores the plain, simple fact that we have a group of politicians, activists, politicians, scientists, politicians, activists and politicians who are telling us that the average temperature from an infinitesimally tiny sliver of years (0.000000444% of the total amount of time the earth has existed, assuming the earth has been around 4.5 billion years) is the end all, be all, absolute perfect average temperature that the planet should maintain for all eternity, and that the simple act of taking money out of my pocket and yours is somehow going to maintain that temperature. So even IF global warming is real, and even IF global warming is man made, and even IF it’s going to defy all logic, common sense and historical trends and somehow continue unabated for the next several centuries (you know, ignoring those periods–like the last 16+ years, and the 1940s through the 1970s–where it’s been cooling longer than the warming has been going on), so what? Why on earth would anyone think that this tiny speck of years is somehow the gold standard by which we should judge global temperatures? To give it a little perspective, it’s like saying that from now on every single social, political and economic policy on the planet is going to be set by the results of polling done on a group of 31 people chosen at random. You’d never consider the opinions of just 31 people to be an accurate representation of the opinions of the 7 billion or so people living on this planet, so why on earth would anyone consider that ridiculously tiny sampling of years to be the benchmark by which every environmental policy going forward should be set?

 

[lynnvinc]

The church has spoken on wise stewardship of the earth. We don’t need a GW scare to do what is right.

I’m really wondering where all this “GW scare” is coming from. Not from those who accept the science and are taking prudent measures to reduce their GHGs.

It’s got to be the skeptics who are scared to death of shopping cart crashes while shopping for LED and CF lights, or being electrocuted when turning off lights not in use. Or maybe their own shadow. How about freezing in the dark, totalitarian takeover, economic collapse (from healing the planet , or neopaganism and pantheism corrupting our minds…

We all know GW and its impacts are a very very slow moving disaster. Even with my bad leg I can outrun sea level rise as it inches up decade after decade onto the beaches.

What GW accepters are is concerned about what problems we might be causing for future generations – which quite frankly no one else I know is even remotedly concerned about. Everyone I know seems to living for today and tomorrow be damned. Or, to be fair, there are so many problems of today that consume modern families, that there is no chance to think about tomorrow. And then there is the issue that God or some natural cataclysm (now that 2012 is over, something else) may end the world well before GW has a chance to do much damage.

“GW fear” is a non-starter.

But “GW mitigation fear,” I think that is real and felt as an immediate threat to today’s life.

Boo

 

[EasterJoy]

The thing is, though, even if we cherry-pick like the GW adherents and only look at the studies that support AGW–even the exaggerated and fabricated ones–and ignore all the studies (and common sense) that argue against it, that still ignores the plain, simple fact that we have a group of politicians, activists, politicians, scientists, politicians, activists and politicians who are telling us that the average temperature from an infinitesimally tiny sliver of years (0.000000444% of the total amount of time the earth has existed, assuming the earth has been around 4.5 billion years) is the end all, be all, absolute perfect average temperature that the planet should maintain for all eternity, and that the simple act of taking money out of my pocket and yours is somehow going to maintain that temperature. So even IF global warming is real, and even IF global warming is man made, and even IF it’s going to defy all logic, common sense and historical trends and somehow continue unabated for the next several centuries (you know, ignoring those periods–like the last 16+ years, and the 1940s through the 1970s–where it’s been cooling longer than the warming has been going on), so what? Why on earth would anyone think that this tiny speck of years is somehow the gold standard by which we should judge global temperatures? To give it a little perspective, it’s like saying that from now on every single social, political and economic policy on the planet is going to be set by the results of polling done on a group of 31 people chosen at random. You’d never consider the opinions of just 31 people to be an accurate representation of the opinions of the 7 billion or so people living on this planet, so why on earth would anyone consider that ridiculously tiny sampling of years to be the benchmark by which every environmental policy going forward should be set?

Well, that’s not actually what they’re saying. They’re not saying the temperature or the sea level is changing too much or that it has never changed that much. They’re saying they believe it alarming that is seems to be changing this much in such a small sliver of time, and that changes that come on so fast might be difficult for the human population and many other species to adjust to without widespread suffering, not that the human population couldn’t adjust quite well to the same changes if these were spread out over a very long period of time. IOW, it isn’t the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change that is the concern. If the same changes were thought to be coming on very slowly, the conversation would be different.

It is kind of like the people who are alarmed at the spread of some religion or ideology. The rate of change raises the alarm long before the absolute numbers have changed very much. And yes, there is the chance that the changes are a hiccup, but the problem is that if rapid change proves the rule, then the window of time when anything could have been done will have passed rather quickly. Or when a small epidemic starts, but the disease is extremely serious. The severity of the threat if the problem continues to grow at its present pace (let alone if the pace accelerates) is the issue.

After all, if combustion is the problem, it is not as if this is something that can be turned around in a day. Switching from a carbon-heavy energy model that is in expansion would take decades, and with growth, decades more of combustion that is at least as high as it is now before it even starts going down. The call now is to slow down the expansion of combustion, after all. No one is saying that cutting it out is even to be hoped for.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’m really wondering where all this “GW scare” is coming from. Not from those who accept the science and are taking prudent measures to reduce their GHGs…

I accept the Science.

it assures me that there’s a Comin’ Ice Age, it will be here by the mid 1980s. to combat this global colding, I’m burning as many carbon credits as I can find. If I continue at this rate, I’ll reach al-Gore’s rate of consumption after 20 years of continual fires.

 

[lynnvinc]

…I also think trying to cut CO2 emissions via mandate is a fool’s errand and extremely dangerous to our economic and physical health…

Agreed. Even JPII said it is everyone’s responsibility to mitigate AGW. No gov actions alone can do solve the problem. However if the gov were to lower its GHG emissions in sensible cost-effective ways, it could save us taxpayers a lot of money. Governments are part of “everyone.” We too as individuals and families are part of “everyone.”

Slashing CO2 emissions willy nilly will not lead to better conservation or cleaner technology. It will result in economic stagnation in the poorest of countries who need to use fossil fuels in their efforts to catch up to the wealthier nations.

Totally disagree. Lowering GHG emissions in rich nations in cost-effective ways without lowering productivity will help the economy, not hurt it – I’ve experience this firsthand and have been into this issue for over 20 years. It will also greatly help poor nations avoid local environmental devastation from drilling oil to be sent to rich nations, and reduce gov & oil company killings and assassinations of the locals protesting the destruction of their lands from oil drilling, such as in Nigeria and Brazil, etc.

Also adding more alt energy to poor economies to offset burning fossil fuels will help poor nations in more ways than one – reducing local pollution and its great health harms.

Better that we adapt to changing temperatures…

like learning how to eat less food…which is the increasing situation in some poor countries from GW right now, and will be the situation for most of the world in a few decades. Of course, we rich people probably should eat less food, but it is and will be more and more causing starvation for the poorest.

It’s easy for rich and fat people to talk about adaptation to increasing droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, searise, and seafood loss while the poor victims of famine enhanced by GW don’t have a say or voice in the matter.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Global Warming and all other natural disasters are caused by sin and nothing else.

 

[Fairwinds]

Global Warming and all other natural disasters are caused by sin and nothing else.

I accept the Science.

did sin cause the meteor strike that resulted in the K–Pg extinction event 66 million years ago?

I blame George Bush. ™

 

[_Abyssinia]

If the Pope or the Catholic Church publicly advocated its stance to combat global warming, would you still deny it?

Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming

When did Pope Francis say ‘global warming?’

 

[EasterJoy]

Global Warming and all other natural disasters are caused by sin and nothing else.

That can be taken in a way that is far too simplistic to do any good. Remember what the Lord said about the victims of the disaster at Siloam.

If you say, for instance, that Hurricane Katrina is the result of sin, do you mean that God is singling out New Orleans for retribution? If not, who? Is everyone just as bad as them, but God is choosing one set of people as an example? Or do you mean that if people put their trust in God instead of levies, stayed ready for death and loved their fellow men instead of enriching themselves, then disasters would play out in different ways than they do now? Do you see that the number of ways that can be taken begs for clarity, lest the statement have no meaning at all?

 

[EasterJoy]

When did Pope Francis say ‘global warming?’

Probably never, since he rarely speaks English.

 

[EasterJoy]

When did Pope Francis say ‘global warming?’

He did say this in his inaugural homily:
“Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be “protectors” of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment. Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!”

So in keeping with his successors, he is refraining from backing this plan or that, but does not hesitate to say that protecting the natural world is part of the moral life of a Christian, and even the moral life of any person of good will. We may disagree about how to take care of the environment, but we may not deny that we ought to take care of it, that having concern for the effects our actions have on creatures other than our fellow human beings is an essential part of our moral life, so essential that he saw fit to include it in the space of the homily by which he articulated the overall concerns of his papacy.

 

[lynnvinc]

He did say this in his inaugural homily:
“Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be “protectors” of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment. Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!”

So in keeping with his successors, he is refraining from backing this plan or that, but does not hesitate to say that protecting the natural world is part of the moral life of a Christian, and even the moral life of any person of good will. We may disagree about how to take care of the environment, but we may not deny that we ought to take care of it, that having concern for the effects our actions have on creatures other than our fellow human beings is an essential part of our moral life, so essential that he saw fit to include it in the space of the homily by which he articulated the overall concerns of his papacy.

I loved his inaugural message. He exhibited a profound understanding in his call for “protecting creation” that it includes not only protecting the natural environment and non-human species, but also humans within the environment and within society and within the womb. He does not fall into the false dichotomy of nature v. people, but understands that we need healthy air, water, food, shelter, and resources for our survival and well-being, that the environment is not something apart from our human condition. “Protecting creation” says it all.

St. Francis of Assissi said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”

A modern St. Francis of Assissi might say, “If you have people who will harm the environment and are against mitigating environmental harms, you will have people who will support abortion and deny aid to poor and suffering people.”

 

[Fairwinds]

…
A modern St. Francis of Assissi might say, “If you have people who will harm the environment and are against mitigating environmental harms, you will have people who will support abortion and deny aid to poor and suffering people.”

a modern St. Francis would say:

"Watch out for enviro-hucksters. follow the money trail and see who really benefits from algorebeal warmerin’. contribute to good conservationist groups like Ducks Unlimited.

and remember, when people connect economic policy decisions to our Faith and presume to speak in the name of the Father to advance political ends, someone’s pulling your leg, Just because someone shoots pronghorn antelope doesn’t mean they’re pro-abortion. Dove hunters contribute more aid to poor people than do the tree huggers."

 

[lynnvinc]

a modern St. Francis would say:

"Watch out for enviro-hucksters. follow the money trail and see who really benefits from algorebeal warmerin’. contribute to good conservationist groups like Ducks Unlimited.

and remember, when people connect economic policy decisions to our Faith and presume to speak in the name of the Father to advance political ends, someone’s pulling your leg, Just because someone shoots pronghorn antelope doesn’t mean they’re pro-abortion. Dove hunters contribute more aid to poor people than do the tree huggers."

You’re right that I do save $1000s from my environmental harm mitigation measures, but it is wrong to attribute evil greedy motives to my actions. I’ve done them all for the sake of the life of the world to reduce my killing and harming of people as best I could. The financial benefits were unexpected and a bonus…as in “seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you.”

All I know is the Bible clearly states “Thou shalt not kill.” Others may differ in their opinion about this – that is it perfectly okay to kill people thru environmental harms – but you will not get me to backtrack on that one. Sorry. You’re wasting you time trying to get me to kill people. Period.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

A modern St. Francis of Assissi might say, “If you have people who will harm the environment and are against mitigating environmental harms, you will have people who will support abortion and deny aid to poor and suffering people.”

a modern St. Francis would know that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and the leadership of the save-the-earth-now club are pro-abortion.

so why don’t you stop speaking for St. Francis and God?

 

[Fairwinds]

You’re right that I do save $1000s from my environmental harm mitigation measures, but it is wrong to attribute evil greedy motives to my actions. I’ve done them all for the sake of the life of the world to reduce my killing and harming of people as best I could. The financial benefits were unexpected and a bonus…as in “seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you.”

I was talking about Gore, but, if the shoe fits.

I also save thousands of dollars by not participating in enviro-scams.

All I know is the Bible clearly states “Thou shalt not kill.” Others may differ in their opinion about this – that is it perfectly okay to kill people thru environmental harms – but you will not get me to backtrack on that one. Sorry. You’re wasting you time trying to get me to kill people. Period.

that’s a nasty thing to accuse someone of. its very uncharitable to accuse me of soliciting major felonies and sins because you buy into climate -]hotting colding /-]change and I don’t. mixing politics and religion to the extent you do is unhealthy, at best, and this is a minor example of why.

when you believe you speak for God and that anyone who disagrees is sinning, how can anyone have a debate with you?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

when you believe you speak for God and that anyone who disagrees is sinning, how can anyone have a debate with you?

That’s just the point - there can be no disagreement with the religion of AGW.

 

[Fairwinds]

That’s just the point - there can be no disagreement with the religion of AGW.

Sister, can you spare a Carbon Credit ™?

 

[EasterJoy]

a modern St. Francis would say:

"Watch out for enviro-hucksters. follow the money trail and see who really benefits from algorebeal warmerin’. contribute to good conservationist groups like Ducks Unlimited.

and remember, when people connect economic policy decisions to our Faith and presume to speak in the name of the Father to advance political ends, someone’s pulling your leg, Just because someone shoots pronghorn antelope doesn’t mean they’re pro-abortion. Dove hunters contribute more aid to poor people than do the tree huggers."

You still talk about dove hunters and tree huggers a little as if those were the only two groups, or as if “there are two kinds of people, dove hunters and tree huggers.”

When it comes to things like spraying DDT, draining wetlands, and putting up barriers to natural migration, hunters tend to be environmentalists, too. Tree-huggers, meanwhile, have been known to set fires, “free” laboratory animals so they can either die a nasty death or else be introduced as a non-native invasive species in an ecosystem not ready for them, and even to commit acts of terrorism that kill other people.

IOW, there aren’t just “two kinds of people”. That is why it is better to just stick to trying to figure out what human activities have what wide-reaching and varied consequences, in order to help people of good will to set their social policies in a just way. That is tough enough to sort out; it isn’t helped by over-simplifying the situation.

If that is what you meant to say in the first place, I agree with you, and apologize for misunderstanding.

 

[Fairwinds]

You still talk about dove hunters and tree huggers a little as if those were the only two groups, or as if “there are two kinds of people, dove hunters and tree huggers.”

When it comes to things like spraying DDT, draining wetlands, and putting up barriers to natural migration, hunters tend to be environmentalists, too. Tree-huggers, meanwhile, have been known to set fires, “free” laboratory animals so they can either die a nasty death or else be introduced as a non-native invasive species in an ecosystem not ready for them, and even to commit acts of terrorism that kill other people.

IOW, there aren’t just “two kinds of people”. That is why it is better to just stick to trying to figure out what human activities have what wide-reaching and varied consequences, in order to help people of good will to set their social policies in a just way. That is tough enough to sort out; it isn’t helped by over-simplifying the situation.

If that is what you meant to say in the first place, I agree with you, and apologize for misunderstanding.

you said it best.