To the global warming nay-sayers

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think if at all one can help reduce death and harm, one has a bound duty as a Christian to do that. Life issues, as messy and uncertain as they may be, trump over-scrupulousness. I think we are bound to do our best to help others and prevent death.

Sometimes science and medicine are wrong, but I think we must do the best we can under imperfect conditions and and imperfect knowledge. And I think the Church has an obligation (or at least a right) to encourage us to save lives and not to kill people willy nilly. It has a role to play “in the world,” esp in ways that relate to the “hereafter.” It’s not just there for spiritual fluff of no consequence.
the person I was responding too used a inept and inaccurate analogy – the medieval church and plague prophylaxis. the verdict on -]the coming ice age/-] -]global warming/-] climate change isn’t in yet and it is infected with political agendas. if we’d acted back in the '70s on the coming ice age where would we be now? warmer? totally jaded by all the crying wolf?
 
I am always so, so amused by the “global warming goobers.” The world is cooling off at the moment, not warming up. As a matter of fact, sunspot specialists say that we are entering a mini-ice age, because one of the sunspots is now beginning to aim straight towards us, cooling off the earth.

Even more amusing than the ignorance is the blind faith! Once a person is convinced that global warming is true, they never do seem to let go of it, no matter how cold it gets.

Oh, well, I suppose some people have to be deluded every once in a while.

-prepares to get flamed- :rolleyes:
It’s actually a religion, as a previous poster alluded to. That is why its proponents accept the statements of their prophets and gods (Al Gore, James Hansen) as Gospel rather than actually questioning the motives of these prophets/profits.

I have nothing against being good stewards of the earth. What I have a problem with is blaming humans for what the planet is doing in order to gain a huge profit and a huge power grab.
 
you brought up the church/plague analogy. the medieval church could not have given given advice for controlling plague, and any advice it did give would have been wrong since the* y. pestis*-rat-flea cycle was unknown at the time. a Catholic then would have been better off ignoring whatever the religious authorities advised.

point: the field of global warming climatology is unsettled and driven by politics with demonstrable fraud in the collection and interpretation of evidence infecting the whole field. moreover, the issue is not one of faith and morals where we are obligated to obey. the Pope’s voice – based on the same body of unsettled and suspect evidence and interpretation is an opinion among many.
I was kind of implying by saying it was rats that they had had some way to know. A Catholic in those actual times would not have had anyone to believe, because nobody knew what caused it, least of all the quack doctors, who tried lancing the buboes and applying a warm poultice of butter, onion and garlic. Other remedies tried including arsenic, lily root and even dried toad.

I know one thing, there isn’t a fraud that’s making the glaciers on in the Western United States all look like a ghost of their former selves. It could be something other than global warming causing that, but it wouldn’t put any more water in the Hood River or the Clackamas or Sandy Rivers in the summertime.

The Church isn’t saying anything about actual policy proposals, anyway. All the Church is saying is that the problem of what to do about such things such as unusually heavy flooding or water shortages or environmental die-offs cannot be a) to just blindly hope it doesn’t happen or b) let the devil take the hindmost in terms of the effects. The Church is saying that looking out for what dangers might be realistically on the horizon and planning for them is part of the necessary work of a Christians and that the good of creation and the most vulnerable people, both in the case the worst happens and in the case that it does not happen, has to be part of that planning. It would be as if the Church said, in the Middle Ages, “If your village doesn’t have the plague yet, your parish still needs to figure out now what you’re going to do if it does, and take care to include the most vulnerable in your plans.”
 
It’s actually a religion, as a previous poster alluded to. That is why its proponents accept the statements of their prophets and gods (Al Gore, James Hansen) as Gospel rather than actually questioning the motives of these prophets/profits.

I have nothing against being good stewards of the earth. What I have a problem with is blaming humans for what the planet is doing in order to gain a huge profit and a huge power grab.
Exactly. 👍
 
It’s actually a religion, as a previous poster alluded to. That is why its proponents accept the statements of their prophets and gods (Al Gore, James Hansen) as Gospel rather than actually questioning the motives of these prophets/profits.

I have nothing against being good stewards of the earth. What I have a problem with is blaming humans for what the planet is doing in order to gain a huge profit and a huge power grab.
that’s the problem. the science is so politicized or profit driven (carbon credits (c)anyone?) that real science and issues are buried.

there’s a dry lake bed close to where I live. in the last 10,000 years, it, and dozens like it throughout the southwest, have gone through a lake-marsh-playa (rainy/dry) cycle a dozen times. not one cycle was caused by humans or capitalism or man’s lack of humanity. not even George Bush can be blamed. and the alarmists are trying to sell me on drowning polar bears? don’t think so. not today.
 

I know one thing, there isn’t a fraud that’s making the glaciers on in the Western United States all look like a ghost of their former selves. It could be something other than global warming causing that, but it wouldn’t put any more water in the Hood River or the Clackamas or Sandy Rivers in the summertime.
in no: 45 I point out a rainy/dry cycle in the mojave desert that oscillates between lakes and playas, a dozen times in the last 10k years. climate change. we didn’t cause it.
 
I have never understood this idea of the Church speaking about this. I also do not understand why it is such an important issue for some. A majority of Catholics have ignored the Church’s teachings on much more definitive moral issues i.e. Birth Control and life issues. Yet THIS is your issue?
I just don’t get it.🤷
Many of us are not having abortions or killing gas station attendents in robberies, etc, but we are doing other things that harm others. For those types of us, it makes sense.

Once one has left really bad sins and habits, the spiritual journey has not ended – and it’s almost as if the further one goes along it, the more and more sins, very minor sins, and imperfections one becomes aware they are engaged in. It’s sort of like the Hydra with two new heads popping out for every one you lop off, except those heads seem larger and larger (while the sins and imperfections are actually getting smaller and smaller).

Anyone seeking union with God would want to continue to leave sin and imperfections behind, and pursue St. John of the Cross’s route of nada, nada, nada. See:



I hope this doesn’t dissuade others from taking the route to union with God, by renouncing even their most minor sins and imperfections…the other side of the coin is joy and peace beyond all understanding.
 
Many of us are not having abortions or killing gas station attendents in robberies, etc, but we are doing other things that harm others. For those types of us, it makes sense.

Once one has left really bad sins and habits, the spiritual journey has not ended – and it’s almost as if the further one goes along it, the more and more sins, very minor sins, and imperfections one becomes aware they are engaged in. It’s sort of like the Hydra with two new heads popping out for every one you lop off, except those heads seem larger and larger (while the sins and imperfections are actually getting smaller and smaller).

Anyone seeking union with God would want to continue to leave sin and imperfections behind, and pursue St. John of the Cross’s route of nada, nada, nada. See:

http://contemplativeinthemud.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ascent1.jpg?w=391&h=680

I hope this doesn’t dissuade others from taking the route to union with God, by renouncing even their most minor sins and imperfections…the other side of the coin is joy and peace beyond all understanding.
So are you saying that for so called environmentalists who buy into the junk science of global warming and make it their moral cause have conquered their other sins?
For me personally, I struggle with Gossip, Lust, and loving God every single day.
I honesetly find it very hard to believe that on the list of being a good Holy Catholic this should register on anyone’s radar. But perhaps you are all way more holy than I am.:rolleyes:

My point was with all the disobedience by many Catholics with regards to the Church not the least of which is not being open to life. The sheer number of Catholics who use contraception or have a contraceptive mentality is worse for the world than the people who think the earth should stay exactly the same temperature for all time.
 
you brought up the church/plague analogy. the medieval church could not have given given advice for controlling plague, and any advice it did give would have been wrong since the* y. pestis*-rat-flea cycle was unknown at the time. a Catholic then would have been better off ignoring whatever the religious authorities advised.
Of possible passing interest, it appears at one time and place they had a clue. In Venice in what I believe was the 17th Century, a plague visited the city and killed about 1/3 of the populace. The city rulers declared that they would build a magnificent cathedral in honor of Our Lady if she would save them from the plague, and they did.

The cathedral’s name is “Santa Maria della salute” (“Our Lady of good health”). While it was being built, the city had a population explosion of cats and the plague ceased. People suspected a connection. As the building proceeded, the builders provided numous little nooks and crannies where otherwise homeless cats could find shelter. The artisans introduced cat images here and there, mostly not visible. To this very day, they feed the cats there pasta every single day. Cats, it appears, like pasta.

If that particular plague was Bubonic Plague, decimation of the rats by the cats might well have aided in ending the thing. The fact that the cathedral contains the cat shelters and they have fed the cats ever since, suggests that the Venetians at least suspected there was a connection between rats and the plague.

I understand that to this day, the locals somtimes refer to the cathedral as “Our Lady of the cats” or as simply “the cats”.
 
Of possible passing interest, it appears at one time and place they had a clue. In Venice in what I believe was the 17th Century, a plague visited the city and killed about 1/3 of the populace. The city rulers declared that they would build a magnificent cathedral in honor of Our Lady if she would save them from the plague, and they did.

The cathedral’s name is “Santa Maria della salute” (“Our Lady of good health”). While it was being built, the city had a population explosion of cats and the plague ceased. People suspected a connection. As the building proceeded, the builders provided numous little nooks and crannies where otherwise homeless cats could find shelter. The artisans introduced cat images here and there, mostly not visible. To this very day, they feed the cats there pasta every single day. Cats, it appears, like pasta.

If that particular plague was Bubonic Plague, decimation of the rats by the cats might well have aided in ending the thing. The fact that the cathedral contains the cat shelters and they have fed the cats ever since, suggests that the Venetians at least suspected there was a connection between rats and the plague.

I understand that to this day, the locals refer to the cathedral as “Our Lady of the cats” or as simply “the cats”.
that would make sense, that cycle is y. pestis - rodent flea - rodent, so breaking the chain slows down the disease. its usually rodent fleas, but sometimes its the fleas of other mammals – those were lucky, 10-or 11- lived cats. the infection will burn through rodent populations slowly as the cycle is stable (the western US has been a plague reservoir in the ground squirrel and prairie dog populations) since the 19th century), but when the disease breaks out into human population, all bets are off. its like a NASCAR wreck, where everyone is “collected”.

I’ve read that the Pope at the time (Clement VI) was surrounded by large braziers or torches as a “medical” precaution, which actually worked because it discouraged fleas.

we’re in the aftermath of the third major pandemic, its always a little disconcerting to read of plague cases in the US or that outbreak they had in algeria a few years ago.
 
So are you saying that for so called environmentalists who buy into the junk science of global warming and make it their moral cause have conquered their other sins?
They are struggling to conquer those sins. I keep back-sliding. And, as I indicated, I have many many other sins and imperfections. Some on CAF have pointed out I am arrogant. Since my husband has accused me of that now and then, I do believe it so. It’s just that it’s hard sometimes for one to see his/her own sins, and it is good to have others there to point them out, or be there as mirrors to oneself.
For me personally, I struggle with Gossip, Lust, and loving God every single day.
I honesetly find it very hard to believe that on the list of being a good Holy Catholic this should register on anyone’s radar. But perhaps you are all way more holy than I am.:rolleyes:
I do think killing and harming people thru whatever means – environmental pollution, global warming – is something we could seek to reduce, even if our individual contribution is minor and only kills one person over a lifetime of our emissions; or one person, along with 100 others also polluting, kills only one person per year. I don’t do any calculus on this, I just do whatever I can to reduce my own contributions to this harm. I do know that a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years, harming people well into the future, so I imagine my contributions of GHGs, tho small in the scheme of the entire world population’s emissions, is NOT insignficant, but do real harm for as long as that harm is happening.

Maybe that is not a sin to kill people that way (I have no idea; I’m not a moral theologian), but I would think it could be viewed at least as an imperfection, and that it would please God if we strive to reduce such harm.
My point was with all the disobedience by many Catholics with regards to the Church not the least of which is not being open to life. The sheer number of Catholics who use contraception or have a contraceptive mentality is worse for the world than the people who think the earth should stay exactly the same temperature for all time.
I don’t use contraception, I’ve never had an abortion, I’ve been married to my one and only husband for 44 years (divorce is also a sin in most cases), and I’m in old age now so many of the other sins don’t apply as much to me anymore, but I AM killing and harming people thru my environmental pollutions, emissions, and failures. It’s an area of study for me and I understand the harm I’m doing (I teach Environmental Crime & Justice). Others may not understand or may not wish to understand.

I can at the least strive to reduce those harms (as well as other sins I fall into). And whatever you or others may say, I will continue to strive to reduce my environmental harms. You really cannot persuade me to engage in killing and harming people thru increasing my environmental harms. I’m quite committed on that point of reducing my harms.

And I don’t like rejecting out-of-hand what the holy fathers (JPII, BXVI) have to say on the matter simply bec they are not climate scientists. I think they are very intelligent men who are quite able to seek out their own good knowledge on the topic. I respect them.

Others have to follow their own conscience and knowledge/understanding of issues – and reject or accept what the holy fathers have to say on the topic.
 
They are struggling to conquer those sins. I keep back-sliding. And, as I indicated, I have many many other sins and imperfections. Some on CAF have pointed out I am arrogant. Since my husband has accused me of that now and then, I do believe it so. It’s just that it’s hard sometimes for one to see his/her own sins, and it is good to have others there to point them out, or be there as mirrors to oneself.

I do think killing and harming people thru whatever means – environmental pollution, global warming – is something we could seek to reduce, even if our individual contribution is minor and only kills one person over a lifetime of our emissions; or one person, along with 100 others also polluting, kills only one person per year. I don’t do any calculus on this, I just do whatever I can to reduce my own contributions to this harm. I do know that a portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years, harming people well into the future, so I imagine my contributions of GHGs, tho small in the scheme of the entire world population’s emissions, is NOT insignficant, but do real harm for as long as that harm is happening.

Maybe that is not a sin to kill people that way (I have no idea; I’m not a moral theologian), but I would think it could be viewed at least as an imperfection, and that it would please God if we strive to reduce such harm.

I don’t use contraception, I’ve never had an abortion, I’ve been married to my one and only husband for 44 years (divorce is also a sin in most cases), and I’m in old age now so many of the other sins don’t apply as much to me anymore, but I AM killing and harming people thru my environmental pollutions, emissions, and failures. It’s an area of study for me and I understand the harm I’m doing (I teach Environmental Crime & Justice). Others may not understand or may not wish to understand.

I can at the least strive to reduce those harms (as well as other sins I fall into). And whatever you or others may say, I will continue to strive to reduce my environmental harms. You really cannot persuade me to engage in killing and harming people thru increasing my environmental harms. I’m quite committed on that point of reducing my harms.

And I don’t like rejecting out-of-hand what the holy fathers (JPII, BXVI) have to say on the matter simply bec they are not climate scientists. I think they are very intelligent men who are quite able to seek out their own good knowledge on the topic. I respect them.

Others have to follow their own conscience and knowledge/understanding of issues – and reject or accept what the holy fathers have to say on the topic.
I just cannot accept your worldview. Who have you killed specifically? What an odd assertion.
 
I just cannot accept your worldview. Who have you killed specifically? What an odd assertion.
For starters, some of the drought victims in Africa over the past 40 years. Some of those who died in the European heatwave of 2003, some of the Hurricane Katrina and Sandy victims, and such victims of superstorms around the world. It is the last “intensity-umph” of these extreme weather events to which AGW is expected to have contributed that does the most damage, the part AGW would have increased.

I’ve harmed some of the famine victims around the world, when the famines were linked to droughts and other harms expected by scientists of being caused by AGW. I’ve destroyed property of victims of floods, hurricanes, etc. I’ve destroyed winter crops in N. Mexico, due to increased strongly negative arctic oscillations (which AGW is theorized to be causing) bringing killing freezes there. Victims of the increased floods in Pakistan and India that killed people and destroyed crops. Victims of the increasing wildfires around the world. The land loss from rising seas (causing evacuations from small island states). Harm and death from disease spread from vectors moving into new globally warmed territories.

My part may have been extremely small, but I was party to all these.

The list of harms from AGW I’ve contributed to goes on and on and on. And will be much much greater in the future from my lifetime emissions of CO2, a portion of which can stay in the atmosphere for 1000s of years – wiping out perhaps over 2/3 of humanity over the course of the next 1000 years, perhaps more, probably not less, perhaps even the complete annihilation of humanity.

By 2050 there will be severe harm to food crops around the world from AGW (including in the U.S.), while now such harms are mainly in poor countries, where people are most vulnerable to food loss.

Then there are concomitant pollution harms I’ve contributed to – ocean acidification, acid rain, local pollution (in resource extraction, shipping, processing, disposal of products).

I said I had never had an abortion, but when I drove my ICE car (over the past 50 years) I was causing pollution that causes abortions (miscarriages) and many other health harms (which I came to understand more fully only some 20 years ago). I was very happy to be able to convince my husband last year to get a Chevy Volt. Tho we still burned about 29 gallons of gasoline last year, that was only a fraction of what we used to burn, putting emissions into the atmosphere, contributing to harm and death thru local pollution, regional pollution, and global warming; not to mention the harms from extraction and processing, the cancer alleys. I was happy to go on 100% wind-generated electricity 11 years ago, and to be getting solar this summer (which is more for a financial investment than environmental action, since we are already on 100% wind).

I’m also happy all these things I’ve done to reduce my harms and killings save us quite a bit of money without lowering our living standards, as we have reduced our GHG emissions by 60%+ below our 1990 level. It has also taken financial stress off our marriage. But that’s not why I’ve done them – it was to reduce my harm and killing. The monetary savings are only the icing on the cake, a bonus I actually did not expect…I had thought 23 years ago when I started down this path I’d have to sacrifice to reduce my harms. But it was just the opposite – either immediate savings, no net cost, or return on investment in the short or long run and continued savings. Only a very few things we’ve done have cost more, and even then there may have been some benefits that outweighed the costs…like buying more expensive organic foods when available (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides doing environmental harms that harm people), which may have had some minor health or nutritional benefits for us.

All I can say is, thank you, Jesus, for being my redeemer and constant helper to help me find solutions, and for being my best friend.
 

I’ve harmed some of the famine victims around the world, when the famines were linked to droughts and other harms expected by scientists of being caused by AGW. I’ve destroyed property of victims of floods, hurricanes, etc. I’ve destroyed winter crops in N. Mexico, due to increased strongly negative arctic oscillations (which AGW is theorized to be causing) bringing killing freezes there. Victims of the increased floods in Pakistan and India that killed people and destroyed crops. Victims of the increasing wildfires around the world. The land loss from rising seas (causing evacuations from small island states). Harm and death from disease spread from vectors moving into new globally warmed territories.

My part may have been extremely small, but I was party to all these…
very scrupulous. especially for crimes that are, as you admit, only theorized.

did you also cause the torrential rains and famine in the 14th century? the 6th century plague? the little ice age? the real ice ages? the pluvial lake-marsh-playa cycle in the southwest? all those were drastic climate swings. I’m looking for someone to blame.
 
very scrupulous. especially for crimes that are, as you admit, only theorized.

did you also cause the torrential rains and famine in the 14th century? the 6th century plague? the little ice age? the real ice ages? the pluvial lake-marsh-playa cycle in the southwest? all those were drastic climate swings. I’m looking for someone to blame.
There are several causes of global climate change, GHGs only being one. And there are several sources of GHGs, human burning of fossil fuels being only one.

I wish people would do a little research and find out about the issue – not from denialist websites but from real scientists and those using their findings to write for the layperson.

I’m glad the holy fathers have been interested in the topic and up on the issues.
 
There are several causes of global climate change, GHGs only being one. And there are several sources of GHGs, human burning of fossil fuels being only one.

I wish people would do a little research and find out about the issue – not from denialist websites but from real scientists and those using their findings to write for the layperson.

I’m glad the holy fathers have been interested in the topic and up on the issues.
“Real” scientists? Yes, I have only payed attention to “real” scientists and they usually agree, unanimously, that the “politically correct” scientists are lying about the whole deal.

I’m sure that the scientists have already told you (and you are fully aware) that the earth’s volcanoes spout more carbon dioxide into the air in a single day than we could possibly do in a whole year.
 
There are several causes of global climate change, GHGs only being one. And there are several sources of GHGs, human burning of fossil fuels being only one.

I wish people would do a little research and find out about the issue – not from denialist websites but from real scientists and those using their findings to write for the layperson.

I’m glad the holy fathers have been interested in the topic and up on the issues.
I also wish the alarmists would jump off the bandwagon until the debate is stable.

you are no longer burning fossil fuels, correct? I always thought it odd that Gore would gulfstream around the world to lecture on global warmerin’ and live in a house whose carbon footprint (r) is the equivalent of dozens of normal houses.
 
…I’m sure that the scientists have already told you (and you are fully aware) that the earth’s volcanoes spout more carbon dioxide into the air in a single day than we could possibly do in a whole year.
Global CO2 levels are at their highest in 3.6 million years. The rate of change in ocean pH is unprecedented in 21 million years. Yes, the volcanoes spew CO2, but apparently the volcanoes don’t need any help from us.
 
Global CO2 levels are at their highest in 3.6 million years. The rate of change in ocean pH is unprecedented in 21 million years. Yes, the volcanoes spew CO2, but apparently the volcanoes don’t need any help from us.
Exactly.
 
… I always thought it odd that Gore would gulfstream around the world to lecture on global warmerin’ and live in a house whose carbon footprint (r) is the equivalent of dozens of normal houses.
Yes, I think it would help the planet a lot if Mr. Gore would find himself a low-consuming hermitage to hang out in, and use Skype. I was going to make a crack about the internet, but I’m actually serious about the idea that he walk the talk about thinking globally and acting locally. He’d be more believable if most of his “appearances” were electronic.

The Pope, for instance, urged Argentines not to spend the money to fly to Rome for his installation, and to give the money saved to the poor. He didn’t neglect his countrymen, though, and used technology to send them his greetings where they had gathered in Buenos Aires.

Our kids did a school report about low-consuming cars, part of which included interviewing me about it. We have a hybrid car, but I told them that nothing substitutes for driving less. Maybe that means not getting as much done–stay at practice instead of coming home, getting something done, and driving back–but you’re really serious about saving gas, getting a car that burns less gas isn’t going to substitute for not going everywhere you want to go whenever you want to go there.

The other thing, of course, is that you have to keep in mind that not everybody can afford a low-consuming car, and people usually have to drive in order to make a living. Still, if those who can conserve do it voluntarily, then it will keep fuel costs lower for those who are forced to drive a car that uses more gas. Maybe if people drive electric cars, the petro fuel will hold out longer for applications where electric isn’t a good option. That’s the ideal, IMHO…to act according to the big picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top