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

[MarkR]

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.

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.

Lol–They are legislating as though its “settled science” all over the place. One lady on the Weather Channel called for “Deniers” to be jailed (even though the founder of the WC said it’s a load of you know what). You can’t speak out against it in schools/universities without being mobbed, expelled, or fired. The list goes on and on.

If you don’t think that Obama, Pelosi, etc want absolute acceptance of “climate change” to be mandated, you’re living in another country. I’m sure I could find many quotes to this effect if I did a Google search. I have to run though. Maybe someone else will. They’re there.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Its the same in the US. you can be a devout catholic and still believe in utter nonsense like AGW.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

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.

You are assuming MMGW is real, is caused by burning fossil fuels, is a threat to mankind, and must be dealt with by reducing fossil fuel use. Many Americans question that in whole or in part. So do most meteorologists and, apparently, a big part of the “97%”

I did not say Catholics cannot believe in MMGW, or that many devout Catholics do not. What I intended to communicate, though apparently I didn’t do it well, is that a significant part of the non-Catholic population in the U.S. is politically conservative and does not follow the Obama political MMGW agenda. Many converts to Catholicism come from that demographic and (if Flannery O’Connor was right, and I think she was) is the most likely source of converts in the future.

In the U.S., at least, when church spokespersons identify the Church with leftist political causes, a lot of non-Catholics of that sort are inclined to think of the Church as simply one more left-wing political organization. As the left, at least in the U.S., is not particularly Christian, but is anti-Christian in many ways, it’s not a good thing for the Church in the U.S. to be identified with the left.

Is Catholic apolgetics now to be burdened with having to defend MMGW, making utility bills “skyrocket” and shipping jobs overseas to countries that will not comply with any MMGW “mitigation” Obama or Europeans come up with?

 

[Micosil]

In the U.S., at least, when church spokespersons identify the Church with leftist political causes, a lot of non-Catholics of that sort are inclined to think of the Church as simply one more left-wing political organization. As the left, at least in the U.S., is not particularly Christian, but is anti-Christian in many ways, it’s not a good thing for the Church in the U.S. to be identified with the left.

Aha! Now, that makes a bit more sense. That is why I was wondering, why it is so heavily politicized in the US. Thank you, now I understand why I was seeing this sort of reaction in the thread.

This is why I personally try to ignore politics as much as I can (except those things that I strongly oppose, in line with Catholic morality, such as abortion), and just focus on scientific facts and evidence, and Catholic morality, and doctrines/dogmas. Otherwise, you may end up sacrificing legit science because of a bizarre political polarization that only happens in one’s specific nation, and not elsewhere.

Is Catholic apolgetics now to be burdened with having to defend MMGW, making utility bills “skyrocket” and shipping jobs overseas to countries that will not comply with any MMGW “mitigation” Obama or Europeans come up with?

AFAIK, Catholic apologetics should mainly be concerned with issues related to faith and morals, and other things that help make the case for Catholicism, such as history, Biblical analysis, etc. – and as far as I can see, all that the news item reports is a simple moral recommendation, it’s not doctrine, it’s not dogma, so I fail to see how apologetics would have to be burdened with trying to support AGW – that is the job of science.

Would you say the Catholic apologist is “burdened” with having to support that specific topic that’s banned on these forums, since Popes have commented positively on it? I think not, and as a matter of fact, notable Catholic apologists have actually come out in support of alternative theories to it, as far as I know, so I don’t know why you’d think this.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Well. I suppose that since I am and will always be a denier I am condemned to eternal damnation.

 

[grotto]

Micosil, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is that the solid, straight up citizen, has to put information under a magnifying glass to find out the real deal. We have been struggling at this because of the amount of intentional misinformation put out by the Obama regime.
Because much of the subject matter has been examined closely it is no longer going to go unchallenged or accepted. The global warming scam has already cost the taxpayers MUCH money in Obama projects of solar and wind failures, batteries for cars and many other “up in smoke” deals. With everything adding up in so many areas we are busier than a one-legged man in a kicking contest. Everyone is really tired of all the whining and bratty causes.

 

[sps49]

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

Ehrlich chased the peak, screaming “the joyride’s coming to the end, ” (hmm, sounds familiar,) and he’s still climbing. It must be obvious that simply shrieking “exponential, exponential!” is not enough.

I looked at your link and the document it pointed to. I must admit that the idea that money is a token for energy has long been in my mind. It’s initial fascination for me stemmed from my desire to have a simple, reliable model from which to compare my expectations from. Its gave me a sense of security that there were simple relationships that could be expressed mathematically, and I could then see how events would turn. The only problem is that people don’t see the economy that way. And if these guys could make a model this accurate, Bill Gates would be their water boy and grounds keeper. But that is not the case. Per Bak’s theory of self organized criticality comes the closest in my mind to representing what is actually occurring in markets, but that does not help, because we are not allowed to see the magnitude nor time of the next “avalanche,” but must be content to plot it on a frequency vs magnitude plot, on a log-log scale no less. Too many states in the model, all of which must be known for a prediction to have any hope of working. No one has done it yet, for earthquakes or the markets.

So, no, the argument for giving your model any more credence than any other is not convincing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Aha! Now, that makes a bit more sense. That is why I was wondering, why it is so heavily politicized in the US. Thank you, now I understand why I was seeing this sort of reaction in the thread.

This is why I personally try to ignore politics as much as I can (except those things that I strongly oppose, in line with Catholic morality, such as abortion), and just focus on scientific facts and evidence, and Catholic morality, and doctrines/dogmas. Otherwise, you may end up sacrificing legit science because of a bizarre political polarization that only happens in one’s specific nation, and not elsewhere.

AFAIK, Catholic apologetics should mainly be concerned with issues related to faith and morals, and other things that help make the case for Catholicism, such as history, Biblical analysis, etc. – and as far as I can see, all that the news item reports is a simple moral recommendation, it’s not doctrine, it’s not dogma, so I fail to see how apologetics would have to be burdened with trying to support AGW – that is the job of science.

Would you say the Catholic apologist is “burdened” with having to support that specific topic that’s banned on these forums, since Popes have commented positively on it? I think not, and as a matter of fact, notable Catholic apologists have actually come out in support of alternative theories to it, as far as I know, so I don’t know why you’d think this.

Quite possibly, European politics might seem strange to Americans if not, perhaps, bizarre. Unquesitoning acceptance of MMGW as a great issue of our time, which you seem to be saying is the European approach to it, is not typical of Americans. Most Americans, it must be said, accept the notion that there is global warming, though that seems to be slipping, quite possibly because there has been none for some 18 years, but also perhaps because no one actually experiences it. But most Americans do not accept the rest of political MMGW theory, particularly the part about artificially causing utility bills to “skyrocket” in its name.

And so, those scientists who dispute it entirely or who accept it but ascribe it to other causes or those who accept that it’s manmade but (like the majority of meteorologists in the U.S.) don’t think it’s a problem, find an audience here. If the dissenting scientists are ignored in Europe, then that’s a choice on the part of the latter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

AFAIK, Catholic apologetics should mainly be concerned with issues related to faith and morals, and other things that help make the case for Catholicism, such as history, Biblical analysis, etc. – and as far as I can see, all that the news item reports is a simple moral recommendation, it’s not doctrine, it’s not dogma, so I fail to see how apologetics would have to be burdened with trying to support AGW – that is the job of science.

Would you say the Catholic apologist is “burdened” with having to support that specific topic that’s banned on these forums, since Popes have commented positively on it? I think not, and as a matter of fact, notable Catholic apologists have actually come out in support of alternative theories to it, as far as I know, so I don’t know why you’d think this.

I think perhaps you don’t know American protestants. Great numbers of them, particularly those who might otherwise be attracted to Catholicism if they only knew it well, simply don’t know it well, though that is changing because of closer associations with faithful Catholics in opposition to things like abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

So, when churchmen express fundamentally political positions like MMGW as if they were Church teachings, it’s off-putting to people who might otherwise come to the Church.
And because Americans really aren’t in lockstep with the MMGW position, there is the risk of alienating many American Catholics for no good reason at all.

 

[MarkR]

…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.

What I wrote is called “sarcasm” Micosil. It’s often used in what’s known as “Humor” or “Satire”. I know that you of the Left have problems with that.

On a serious note, there is nothing that the Left “deals with” that doesn’t harm people. Millions and millions of them. The ultimate solution (Final Solution) for “Progressives” is always anti-human–the less mouths to feed or “carbon footprints” walking around, the better… This is what amazes me about the Vatican’s position.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Micosil, the current state of affairs in the U.S. is that the solid, straight up citizen, has to put information under a magnifying glass to find out the real deal. We have been struggling at this because of the amount of intentional misinformation put out by the Obama regime.
Because much of the subject matter has been examined closely it is no longer going to go unchallenged or accepted. The global warming scam has already cost the taxpayers MUCH money in Obama projects of solar and wind failures, batteries for cars and many other “up in smoke” deals. With everything adding up in so many areas we are busier than a one-legged man in a kicking contest. Everyone is really tired of all the whining and bratty causes.

I find it interesting that Germany has admitted the failure of its much-vaunted windmill electricity generation and is now burning brown coal (lots of that in Germany) to keep the lights on and the industry running. There’s no dirtier coal on earth than brown coal.

Being in step with politically correct notions is one thing, but keeping the lights on is quite another; at least in Germany.

 

[MarkR]

I wonder if the envoy will take a side on California’s Human Being vs Delta Smelt controversy??

For those who aren’t familiar with it, the “environmentalist” storm troopers are cutting off water to citizens in order to protect the delta smelt, a small fish that makes a gold fish look like Moby Dick. As a result, they’re creating another dust bowl. Farmers are losing their crops, and the price of food is going steadily up across the nation which, of course, affects the poor more than anyone else. Another example of the anti-human being Left in action. Hug a smelt!

Where stands the envoy on this?? He’s buddied up with these peeps.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)

 

[ucfengr]

I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)

It’s funny that you imagine the “global warming/climate change/whatever” skeptics are any less tired of this than you are. It really is tiring to hear people go on and on about a gas that makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere. It’s also really tiring to hear about how me just living my life is DESTROYING THE PLANET and causing THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. It’s just exhausting.

 

[MarkR]

Hope just demonstrated why at some point they’ll try to use Force through legislation. Hope is “tired” of it (ignoring the other side’s argument and common sense). Others won’t stand for it. They never can abide or even understand descent.

Fortunately, in the U.S. anyway, they’re greatly outnumbered, although most of them live in an echo chamber and think they’re not.

 

[estesbob]

I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)

And what is your solution to this “problem”

 

[JimG]

I wonder if the envoy will take a side on California’s Human Being vs Delta Smelt controversy??

For those who aren’t familiar with it, the “environmentalist” storm troopers are cutting off water to citizens in order to protect the delta smelt, a small fish that makes a gold fish look like Moby Dick. As a result, they’re creating another dust bowl. Farmers are losing their crops, and the price of food is going steadily up across the nation which, of course, affects the poor more than anyone else. Another example of the anti-human being Left in action. Hug a smelt!

Where stands the envoy on this?? He’s buddied up with these peeps.

One would hope that the Vatican bureaucracy would know enough not to enter the Delta smelt controversy. But these are strange times. One hopes that they don’t enter the controversy on the side of favoring the smelt over the humans.

 

[Ender]

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?

If global warming is such an established scientific fact, then why is it there is no agreement as to why there has been no warming for over 18 years? Why do the models continue to predict warming even as the Earth itself stubbornly refuses to heat up? It is asserted that the “missing” heat for the past 18 years has gone into the oceans but this claim cannot be either verified or refuted since there is simply insufficient evidence to confirm or deny it.

There are hypotheses galore about how the atmosphere can heat the oceans without heating up themselves, but there is nothing like established fact. These are guesses that don’t even rise to the level of theories.

Ender

 

[Micosil]

What I wrote is called “sarcasm” Micosil. It’s often used in what’s known as “Humor” or “Satire”. I know that you of the Left have problems with that.

I have absolutely no way to discern sarcasm online, especially if no emoticons or smileys are used;

Kindly refrain from grouping me into political parties and groups. I have absolutely no interest in politics, unless it clashes with something I’m personally interested (such as moral issues, like abortion).

I wonder if the envoy will take a side on California’s Human Being vs Delta Smelt controversy??

For those who aren’t familiar with it, the “environmentalist” storm troopers are cutting off water to citizens in order to protect the delta smelt, a small fish that makes a gold fish look like Moby Dick. As a result, they’re creating another dust bowl. Farmers are losing their crops, and the price of food is going steadily up across the nation which, of course, affects the poor more than anyone else. Another example of the anti-human being Left in action. Hug a smelt!

Where stands the envoy on this?? He’s buddied up with these peeps.

I am still waiting for you to back up those claims with news articles or reports.

I always try so hard to walk in someone’s shoes before I think anything of them, but those of you that deny climate change and/or the part we play in it… I just don’t understand.

How can you be so… Blind? Pardon if this sounded rude, but I just truly do not understand how there are so many people on this thread that do not believe our actions are hurting the earth. You won’t listen to me if I speak of global warming, but what of deforestation? Depleting the earth of all its resources, such as oil? Pollution of the water, of the air?

We disrupted the environment’s balance. Though we probably can’t harm the entire earth and everything about it, we can and currently are ruining the plentiful environment that we depend on for survival. This isn’t balance anymore, we have become too greedy. And greed, as I’m sure you all know, is a deadly sin.

I for one am happy that the Church is finally recognizing the importance of the environment and the climate. It is a moral obligation for us to avoid damaging the delicate environment that God created. Not just a scientific matter.

No, I don’t expect that any of you will agree with me, and you will continuously spout the same things that you have been saying. I almost envy your content denial. But maybe just one of you will listen and understand how important all of the life God has created is.

(Sorry if I sounded harsh, rude, etc. I did not mean to be. I simply am tired of this all)

Finally, one of the few breaths of fresh air in this thread.

It’s funny that you imagine the “global warming/climate change/whatever” skeptics are any less tired of this than you are. It really is tiring to hear people go on and on about a gas that makes up 0.03% of the atmosphere. It’s also really tiring to hear about how me just living my life is DESTROYING THE PLANET and causing THE END OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. It’s just exhausting.

This demonstrates a poor understanding of science and the role even such a small concentration of carbon dioxide can play in the atmosphere. I would suggest you read the first paragraph of this article.

Hope just demonstrated why at some point they’ll try to use Force through legislation. Hope is “tired” of it (ignoring the other side’s argument and common sense). Others won’t stand for it. They never can abide or even understand descent.

Fortunately, in the U.S. anyway, they’re greatly outnumbered, although most of them live in an echo chamber and think they’re not.

I am not sure if you’re being sarcastic here or not as before; look, the deal is, Hollywood, the government, etc. rams gay marriage, abortion and a whole load of other things down our throats, and we should not put up with it because it goes against our moral judgement and that of the Church – but this isn’t a moral judgement we’re dealing with here, but something that is claimed to be a scientific fact. So the government is wrong on things like gay marriage, abortion and a host of other things – even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day.

And what is your solution to this “problem”

Well, a first step would be to let go of prejudices against the government, the media, Hollywood, etc. and recognize that science does seem to make a decent case for it.

If global warming is such an established scientific fact, then why is it there is no agreement as to why there has been no warming for over 18 years? Why do the models continue to predict warming even as the Earth itself stubbornly refuses to heat up? It is asserted that the “missing” heat for the past 18 years has gone into the oceans but this claim cannot be either verified or refuted since there is simply insufficient evidence to confirm or deny it.

There are hypotheses galore about how the atmosphere can heat the oceans without heating up themselves, but there is nothing like established fact. These are guesses that don’t even rise to the level of theories.

Ender

Please read this, and have a look at this, in particular the first graph on the right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Per geologic data, equilibrium sea level for 400ppm CO2 is 14m above present.

http://sustainablecitiescollective....es/imagepicker/566036/Shanghai-&-Yancheng.jpg

The map above shows 20million people who will have to move somewhere, and I doubt they will be welcomed with open arms… and that’s just one region.

For starters, 100 million people live within 1m of present sea level, and 1m sea level rise is IPCC estimate for 2100. Probably too conservative, because the Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing faster than anyone thought several years ago when the IPCC prediction was made.

After the expose’ of how " climate change " proponents have doctored the " evidence " no one can take your " evidence " seriously.

Linus2nd