Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[weller2]

Why does anybody think that?

Because the national debt is growing exponentially (by it’s very nature), so the GDP must also keep growing exponentially to keep it serviceable. Once economy stops growing, the debt/GDP ratio increases, interest payments can no longer be made (as they would take an unacceptably large part of GDP), and the state defaults.

This is precisely why economists panic when they hear the word “recession”. A -2% growth for 10 years would only make you 18% poorer salary-wise on year 10. But it would also preclude rolling over the state debt, as there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the state can pay ever-increasing interest payments. Once the state defaults, the assets backed by its debt suddenly evaporate, which causes a cascading failure through banking system. You could see that in 2009 when mortgage-backed assets suddenly evaporated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because the national debt is growing exponentially (by it’s very nature), so the GDP must also keep growing exponentially to keep it serviceable. Once economy stops growing, the debt/GDP ratio increases, interest payments can no longer be made (as they would take an unacceptably large part of GDP), and the state defaults.

This is precisely why economists panic when they hear the word “recession”. A -2% growth for 10 years would only make you 18% poorer salary-wise on year 10. But it would also preclude rolling over the state debt, as there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the state can pay ever-increasing interest payments. Once the state defaults, the assets backed by its debt suddenly evaporate, which causes a cascading failure through banking system. You could see that in 2009 when mortgage-backed assets suddenly evaporated.

The national debt only grows exponentially when political powers cause it to do so. There is nothing inherent about it. And growth of national debt does not cause GDP to go up with it.

The mortgage crisis, which actually started well before 2009, did not cause cascading failure through the banking system. What it did cause was a liquidity “freeze” when institutions suddenly lost confidence in the ability of overnight debtors to repay. And that really was threatening.

At bottom, of course, was the failure to reform FNMA and FHLMC combined with pressure on lenders to make bad loans, which the lenders promptly unloaded onto securitizers. So, for a brief time, liquidity lenders didn’t know who was solvent and who wasn’t. It was more a failure of government than anything else.

 

[sps49]

This is precisely the problem. The capitalism is bound by the laws of nature, but the nature of money demands that it should not.

Of course I can see evidence of adaptation; windmills and solar panels are an adaptation.

That said, the anti-AGW argument presupposes that, if it were not for those pesky leftists, everyone would be able to continue to waste energy and drive proverbial SUVs. That’s simply not the case, AGW or not, as we are hitting fundamental geological constraints.

As I said, the party is over, prepare for an era of simpler living.

Your assertions regarding money and the “anti-AGW” crowd make sense in the model of the universe you have constructed, but so what? Your model is one of many that do not resemble reality. Again, it is only useful for courting outrage.

 

[weller2]

Your assertions regarding money and the “anti-AGW” crowd make sense in the model of the universe you have constructed, but so what? Your model is one of many that do not resemble reality. Again, it is only useful for courting outrage.

Let’s discuss the basics: what is the relationship between debt and money?

 

[weller2]

Since I have some obligations, I will just leave this here:

tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/tp0510_TPSI_report_005_LR.pdf

Happy reading, especially from page 12 onwards

 

[MarkR]

Wake me up when they’re growing wheat and making beer in Greenland as the Norsemen did in the 14th century. THAT was global warming in action … and it didn’t last forever, it reverted to cooling eventually. Climate is cyclical like everything else.

Yup, but “crisis” is like oxygen to the totalitarian Left. If there is none, they manufacture it.

There was an old Twilight Zone episode where a woman was waiting to die because the earth was moving closer to the sun–sweating all over the place. Then she wakes up. Turns out she had a fever and in reality the earth was freezing to death. This has been climate “science” ever since I was born, but in reverse–1st it was a coming man made ice Age, now we’re all going to fry. I swear, I think they got the idea for this swindle from that Twilight Zone episode! We’re being beaten to death by 1950s science fiction. Just say something’s happening and legislate.

 

[Micosil]

I apologize if I offend anyone, and I say this with all the Christian charity I can muster, but on reading many of the posts in this thread, my face was like this.

Yes, the Church shouldn’t be in the business of politics. Yes, the Church shouldn’t be pretending to be a scientific think-tank.

But we need to remember – truth cannot contradict truth. And if on the basis of a scientific truth, a moral recommendation is made, namely that “wealth [sic] nations have a moral duty to take the lead in addressing climate change”, I don’t quite see the problem.

 

[MarkR]

I apologize if I offend anyone, and I say this with all the Christian charity I can muster, but on reading many of the posts in this thread, my face was like this.

Yes, the Church shouldn’t be in the business of politics. Yes, the Church shouldn’t be pretending to be a scientific think-tank.

But we need to remember – truth cannot contradict truth. And if on the basis of a scientific truth, a moral recommendation is made, namely that “wealth nations have a moral duty to take the lead in addressing climate change”, I don’t quite see the problem.

If it was happening, that would be true, but it’s not. It’s most certainly not “settled science”, which is an oxymoron and a sign that they’re about to use Force. In spite of relentless propaganda, most people (at least in the U.S.) don’t believe it’s a threat. Common sense is winning out. Now comes Force.

There are SO many giveaways that this is being manufactured. A big one is the change in name–“Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. This shows that their rigged models aren’t cutting it anymore–“Do you believe in Climate Change?”–Yeah! It changes every day! What I DON’T “believe in” (note how it’s usually phrased in religious terms) is man made climate change.

They’re losing the argument and doing what they always do when it happens–they shut down and black out and demonize the Truth and those who believe the Truth. Always the same. Always dependent on a low information citizenry which they do their best to create.

Incidentally, no nation on earth has done more to address this swindle than the U.S., to the point where it truly hurts. It hurts the poor more than any as their freedom of movement is restricted because of gas prices, they have to choose between paying the energy bill or paying the rent/mortgage, losing their jobs or losing hours/wages, etc. You want someone to address this, talk to China and India. Then watch them belly laugh

 

[ishii]

That said, the anti-AGW argument presupposes that, if it were not for those pesky leftists, everyone would be able to continue to waste energy and drive proverbial SUVs. That’s simply not the case, AGW or not, as we are hitting fundamental geological constraints.

As I said, the party is over, prepare for an era of simpler living.

Do you like strawman arguments ? Because that is what you’re doing above.

You may be correct that we should all be living simpler lives. But not because the sky is falling.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Do you like strawman arguments ? Because that is what you’re doing above.

You may be correct that we should all be living simpler lives. But not because the sky is falling.

Ishii

They’ll have to pry my SUV and My Dodge Ram 3500 Diesel truck from my cold dead hands.

 

[Ender]

And if on the basis of a scientific truth, a moral recommendation is made, namely that “wealth [sic] nations have a moral duty to take the lead in addressing climate change”, I don’t quite see the problem.

There are two problems here. MarkR identified one: the science is very much not settled. At this point we don’t know what the truth is regarding climate change, but even if we did that still would not impose on anyone the obligation to accept the mitigation proposals of the Vatican. There absolutely is not a moral duty to accede to them, whatever they may be. We have an obligation to take their proposals seriously, but we certainly have no duty - moral or otherwise - to implement them.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are SO many giveaways that this is being manufactured. A big one is the change in name–“Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.

Your interpretation. Others may have a different interpretation.

They’re losing the argument and doing what they always do when it happens–they shut down and black out and demonize the Truth and those who believe the Truth. Always the same. Always dependent on a low information citizenry which they do their best to create.

Sounds like some demonizing going on right there by you. That itself is a low information technique that you seem to abhor. And as far as “winning the argument” goes, the popular opinion is more of a testament to the effectiveness of highly-motivated propagandists on the anti-AGW side, who have a lot more personally at stake. I would not draw too much from that.

Incidentally, no nation on earth has done more to address this swindle than the U.S., to the point where it truly hurts.

You are right that it is incidental - in fact so incidental that it is irrelevant to the scientific debate.

It hurts the poor more than any as their freedom of movement is restricted because of gas prices

What about the freedom of movement of the millions of poor living within one meter of sea level. Are you going to give them the freedom to share your land when rising seas flood them out?

 

[Micosil]

The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4][5][6] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[7] though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions.[8] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.[9][10]

I’ve never in my life seen any sort of disagreement on global warming, anthropogenic or not, where I live in Europe. The kind of responses I’m seeing here are extremely new and unique to me.

I am very puzzled as to why there’s a rather negative reaction to it in this thread; is it something one feels clashes with the Catholic faith?

 

[MarkR]

There are two problems here. MarkR identified one: the science is very much not settled. At this point we don’t know what the truth is regarding climate change, but even if we did that still would not impose on anyone the obligation to accept the mitigation proposals of the Vatican. There absolutely is not a moral duty to accede to them, whatever they may be. We have an obligation to take their proposals seriously, but we certainly have no duty - moral or otherwise - to implement them.

Ender

What should alarm people is how it’s becoming mandatory to accept “climate change” as a fact. The government, especially the current admin. and it’s acolytes, are pushing for this to happen legislatively. Fortunately, in most areas of the U.S , people aren’t buying it except for a very loud few. But in areas like Manhattan where I live, you can literally be mobbed if you disagree. This is the “tolerant” Left.

If you believe that the media, academia and Hollywood/Big “Kulture” represent America, we’re a nation surrounded by Manhattan, DC, Hollywood and other urban areas. This isn’t the case though as much as they’d like it to be. There’s still a country here, and they’re the exception, not the rule. It’s important that people realize this since they try to obscure it. The Vatican taking sides doesn’t help, but this is a “prudential” judgment and no one has to go along with it. I just wonder why the Vatican’s doing this.

…

 

[Micosil]

What should alarm people is how it’s becoming mandatory to accept “climate change” as a fact.

Nobody is forcing anyone to accept climate change, yes, without quotes, just like no-one is forcing anyone to accept gravity, or special relativity, or chemistry.

The government, especially the current admin. and it’s acolytes, are pushing for this to happen legislatively. Fortunately, in most areas of the U.S , people aren’t buying it except for a very loud few. But in areas like Manhattan where I live, you can literally be mobbed if you disagree. This is the “tolerant” Left. …

Care to provide support for that? I’d like to see a news report or something of someone being mobbed for disagreeing with climate change.

If you believe that the media, academia and Hollywood/Big “Kulture” represent America, we’re a nation surrounded by Manhattan, DC, Hollywood and other urban areas. This isn’t the case though as much as they’d like it to be. There’s still a country here, and they’re the exception, not the rule. It’s important that people realize this since they try to obscure it. The Vatican taking sides doesn’t help, but this is a “prudential” judgment and no one has to go along with it. I just wonder why the Vatican’s doing this.

…

Look, I agree as much as the next guy that the media, Hollywood and progressive secular tendencies can often promote countless sins – what I fail to understand here, however, is this collective dismissal of something that is known to be an established scientific fact. To wit, what kind of “sin” or bad morals do you think is promulgated by simply reporting the concensus of mainstream scientific academia?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I just wonder why the Vatican’s doing this.

…

So do I. Maybe in Europe it’s considered mandatory to believe in MMGW, so that Vatican personnel consider it a “given” as certain as the sun rising in the east and feel somehow they must get on board with it, despite the fact that “remediation” will most assuredly bring unnecessary hardship to the people most in need of reasonable prices for energy.

In the U.S., it’s certainly not considered a “given”, and particularly not among those people most likely to find affinity for real Catholic doctrines and morals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve never in my life seen any sort of disagreement on global warming, anthropogenic or not, where I live in Europe. The kind of responses I’m seeing here are extremely new and unique to me.

I am very puzzled as to why there’s a rather negative reaction to it in this thread; is it something one feels clashes with the Catholic faith?

I don’t know how it is in Europe, but in the U.S. there is a tendency to discount MMGW because people do not experience it and because the predictions of its proponents do not happen.

 

[Micosil]

So do I. Maybe in Europe it’s considered mandatory to believe in MMGW, so that Vatican personnel consider it a “given” as certain as the sun rising in the east and feel somehow they must get on board with it, despite the fact that “remediation” will most assuredly bring unnecessary hardship to the people most in need of reasonable prices for energy.

Like I said before, it’s not “mandatory” to believe in it, just like one can get by in life without necessarily accepting other equally accepted scientific theories, such as gravitation, or fluid dynamics. I speak from experience. I live in Europe. I have for the vast majority of my life.

In the U.S., it’s certainly not considered a “given”, and particularly not among those people most likely to find affinity for real Catholic doctrines and morals.

This is where I have to strongly disagree; I know quite a few very devout Catholics who would give you a very odd look if you claimed you doubted anthropogenic global warming.

I am not sure how it is in the US, or why it’s so heavily politicized there (I’ve also noticed this with other themes and topics, specific ones that are apparently banned on this forum so I will not mention them), but I can assure you, in Europe, Spain atleast, you can be a devout Catholic, daily mass, rosary-praying, donating type, and not have to shoot yourself in the scientific foot.

 

[MarkR]

So do I. Maybe in Europe it’s considered mandatory to believe in MMGW, so that Vatican personnel consider it a “given” as certain as the sun rising in the east and feel somehow they must get on board with it, despite the fact that “remediation” will most assuredly bring unnecessary hardship to the people most in need of reasonable prices for energy.

In the U.S., it’s certainly not considered a “given”, and particularly not among those people most likely to find affinity for real Catholic doctrines and morals.

Maybe the Vatican considers this “ecumenism” They are dealing with a pseudo religion. Bilking the U.S. could be considered ecumenical too I guess Whatever the reason they’re very wrong imo and helping to harm many people–the poor especially. The MMGW crowd cares so much about them that they want less of them. Literally killing them with “kindness”.

 

[Micosil]

Maybe the Vatican considers this “ecumenism” They are dealing with a pseudo religion. Bilking the U.S. could be considered ecumenical too I guess Whatever the reason they’re very wrong imo and helping to harm many people–the poor especially. The MMGW crowd cares so much about them that they want less of them. Literally killing them with “kindness”.

…quite frankly, all I can say is:

I mean you no disrespect, or any ill will, but I am quite sure we can deal with the issue without unnecessarily harming poor people.