Views on Controversial Issues

[CrossofChrist]

Environmental damage is a big problem. I’m not very knowledgeable about GW though. Seems like it is problematic though–pretty much everyone in the scientific community speaks of it, the Pope addressed it, and there has been very strange weather lately, at least where I live.

IIRC, climate change and GW doesn’t necessarily mean the weather is warmer all the time. It can also entail extreme weather becoming more common. The latter certainly seems true.

 

[lynnvinc]

You needed one for “Abortion illegal and not sure about GW”.

Unlike the issue of abortion, GW remains confusing. Heqq, when abortion was made legal, folks still believed an ice age was coming.

ICXC NIKA.

Unfortunately it is the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry that has made GW confusing – it’s even in their docs to just sow seeds of doubt.

For those who follow legit scientists it is not confusing at all, and it was very well explained in the 1980s when it was termed “the greenhouse effect.” Pope JPII came out in 1990 admonishing us all to mitigate it, so Pope Francis is actually the 3rd pope after JPII and BXVI to insist that we mitigate this life-harming problem.

Also, I think it is easy to be against other people having abortions, but difficult for people to reduce their own harms to life on earth, including to their own progeny, and denying one is engaged in such harms and killing becomes the easy way out.

I personally have been against abortion from my youth in the 50s and have been personally touched by the harms from abortion (well before I converted to Catholicism), but it is this very pro-life stance that I take that makes me do all I can to reduce my environmental harms and killing of others thru GW and other such harms.

In my books there is no such thing as a pro-life, anti-abortion person who is not also into mitigating GW and other environmental harms. It just doesn’t compute.

The 3 pontiffs are my role models and heroes.

 

[robwar]

Abortion should be legal & Global warming is not a real problem

I would prefer to see abortion as something very rare, but safe. Making it illegal doesn’t make it go away. Plus, the courts have already decided it’s legal. Need more focus on making it rare.

We have many environmental problems, but CO2 isn’t one of them.

Abortion is never safe because it destroys a human life and scars the woman for life. Truth is defined by God not the supreme court.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

On Global Warming, the vast majority of climate scientists believe it is an issue. I defer to their superior knowledge.

 

[adawgj]

Unfortunately it is the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry that has made GW confusing – it’s even in their docs to just sow seeds of doubt.

For those who follow legit scientists it is not confusing at all, and it was very well explained in the 1980s when it was termed “the greenhouse effect.” Pope JPII came out in 1990 admonishing us all to mitigate it, so Pope Francis is actually the 3rd pope after JPII and BXVI to insist that we mitigate this life-harming problem.

Also, I think it is easy to be against other people having abortions, but difficult for people to reduce their own harms to life on earth, including to their own progeny, and denying one is engaged in such harms and killing becomes the easy way out.

I personally have been against abortion from my youth in the 50s and have been personally touched by the harms from abortion (well before I converted to Catholicism), but it is this very pro-life stance that I take that makes me do all I can to reduce my environmental harms and killing of others thru GW and other such harms.

In my books there is no such thing as a pro-life, anti-abortion person who is not also into mitigating GW and other environmental harms. It just doesn’t compute.

The 3 pontiffs are my role models and heroes.

Good job, totally agree with your opinion.

 

[fnr]

The results of the poll and some of the responses suggest to me a particular model of Catholic cognitive bias in voting in the U.S.

First, consider that abortion and global warming are both considered to be evils. The poll was conducted based on abortion and global warming, but it could just as easily been conducted based on stem cell research and gun control, homosexual unions and financial regulation, or a number of other contrasts.

Second, consider that the two dominant U.S. political parties have split both on these issues.

Third, consider the “non-negotiables” approach to voting advocated by some Catholic organizations, including Catholic answers. Such an approach places greater weight on abortion than global warming. (Not criticizing this, only describing it).

Fourth, as a result of the partisan split on issues, prioritizing abortion causes one to vote in a manner that would seem to allow global warming to continue unabated.

Fifth, this voting pattern produces cognitive dissonance, whereby in voting to stop one evil, the awareness of voting to allow another evil to continue produces discomfort.

Sixth, to mitigate this cognitive dissonance, the voter who prioritizes abortion has a cognitive preference in favor of information that downplay the existence or potential harms of global warming.

Seventh, over time, the preference for information that supports one’s voting habits causes one to consider as valid only those pieces of information that support one’s electoral choices.

I would suggest that this model is universal. Take hard-core environmentalists. They might support global warming over everything else in their voting, and as a result, selectively cite evidence that abortion is not really a problem. Or contraceptive advocates, who are likley to discount evidence that contraceptive hormones in women’s urine produces toxic effects in fish, and possibly contributes to the earlier age of puberty seen in modern children.

What do you think?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The results of the poll and some of the responses suggest to me a particular model of Catholic cognitive bias in voting in the U.S.

First, consider that abortion and global warming are both considered to be evils. The poll was conducted based on abortion and global warming, but it could just as easily been conducted based on stem cell research and gun control, homosexual unions and financial regulation, or a number of other contrasts.

Second, consider that the two dominant U.S. political parties have split both on these issues.

Third, consider the “non-negotiables” approach to voting advocated by some Catholic organizations, including Catholic answers. Such an approach places greater weight on abortion than global warming. (Not criticizing this, only describing it).

Fourth, as a result of the partisan split on issues, prioritizing abortion causes one to vote in a manner that would seem to allow global warming to continue unabated.

Fifth, this voting pattern produces cognitive dissonance, whereby in voting to stop one evil, the awareness of voting to allow another evil to continue produces discomfort.

Sixth, to mitigate this cognitive dissonance, the voter who prioritizes abortion has a cognitive preference in favor of information that downplay the existence or potential harms of global warming.

Seventh, over time, the preference for information that supports one’s voting habits causes one to consider as valid only those pieces of information that support one’s electoral choices.

I would suggest that this model is universal. Take hard-core environmentalists. They might support global warming over everything else in their voting, and as a result, selectively cite evidence that abortion is not really a problem. Or contraceptive advocates, who are likley to discount evidence that contraceptive hormones in women’s urine produces toxic effects in fish, and possibly contributes to the earlier age of puberty seen in modern children.

What do you think?

FWIW, I said it was a problem and abortion should be illegal…

However, maybe some people took “not a real issue” to mean it was insignificant compared to other issues we face (e.g abortion, euthanasia, marriage, etc), not that it wasn’t actually happening.

Environmental damage is a bigger problem than GW (yes, I know they are in part related. Of course, this isn’t my area of expertise)

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I am against abortion in all cases, even in emergencies; and…

Well if we are talking about global warming then we’re talking about a natural occurrence in the Earth’s weather systems. I think what you meant to say is climate change - a sudden change in climate, whether by human means or by natural means. So yes, climate change is very real.

I personally have been against abortion from my youth in the 50s and have been personally touched by the harms from abortion (well before I converted to Catholicism), but it is this very pro-life stance that I take that makes me do all I can to reduce my environmental harms and killing of others thru GW and other such harms.

I have a sense that the debate on climate change in the US is attached well to the debate between Democrats and Republicans; conservatives and liberals. Personally I am outraged when people say that climate change is a hoax. We Filipinos have been through two to four super typhoons and long periods of strong rain in the last five years. Thousands died over the course of this time period. We’ve never had this frequency of extreme weather before. And you call THAT a hoax?!?

I’m sorry if I would sound uncharitable in my following rant, but I think people should be ashamed when they say climate change is a myth. You’ve seen how we have suffered because of the extreme typhoons we have been experiencing. If this continues we would sink into the sea, while you Americans sit comfortably eating turkey in your continental suburbs ignorantly ignoring your former colony’s (and closest ally’s) suffering. Regardless of whether climate change was caused mostly by human means or natural means, with what we’re doing to the environment there might be a possibility that we humans might have a part in this. And if people ignore this fact then they’re doing a disservice to the millions of people, including people here in the Philippines, who are currently suffering and under constant threat because of climate change.

Being pro-life means going beyond protecting life during conception and birth. It does not stop at birth. We must take care of those humans who are fully developed, as well as God’s living creation around us. It’s not a matter of whether the Democrats or the liberals are advocating for action against climate change. These kinds of issues go beyond petty partisan politics because they concern humanity as a whole. You Americans make everything political.

I won’t be replying to anyone who replies to this post. It would be a waste of my time.

 

[Poussin]

Personally I am outraged when people say that climate change is a hoax. …
I’m sorry if I would sound uncharitable in my following rant, but I think people should be ashamed when they say climate change is a myth.

I do not feel ashamed for criticizing the artificial causation between frequency/severity of storms based on limited time frames and methodology and “climate change.” So CatholicWhovian can remain ‘outraged’. For one that does not like making it political, drawing a line in the sand that this topic is a waste of time for her/him to discuss further, is pretty much the biggest politically charged lines one can draw in discourse.

I simply want to see the evidence that global warming is occurring beyond mere speculation. I do not want a ‘poll’ of scientists, I want real science and not a published opinion that is more speculative than science. An opinion is not science just because a scientists writes it. Practically every measurement, test, model, has been contradicted and required revision, until that measurement, test, and/or model is contradicted. I get that speculative science is subject to some refinement, but my goodness, does it not need to be right at least once before we reorganize the world economy.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Linking these two issues is absurd. One is a moral issue. The other is science. Get it straight.

 

[Ositokc]

Linking these two issues is absurd. One is a moral issue. The other is science. Get it straight.

Absolutely true. There is no controversy about Global Warming, it’s real and does exist.

 

[RGCheek]

Absolutely true. There is no controversy about Global Warming, it’s real and does exist.

It is odd to see people repeating this ‘AGW is unanimous’ myth in the face of all the scientists who disagree and stake their careers on bucking the bull.

The Earth has been warmer and will get colder and warmer still all without our help.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd....751f3e185010e44b4fb783601a6bcacd&oe=55456337&gda=1425905250_589e9687c089ee81c0a6e65bdab7a2ab

 

[estesbob]

The results of the poll and some of the responses suggest to me a particular model of Catholic cognitive bias in voting in the U.S.

First, consider that abortion and global warming are both considered to be evils. The poll was conducted based on abortion and global warming, but it could just as easily been conducted based on stem cell research and gun control, homosexual unions and financial regulation, or a number of other contrasts.

Second, consider that the two dominant U.S. political parties have split both on these issues.

Third, consider the “non-negotiables” approach to voting advocated by some Catholic organizations, including Catholic answers. Such an approach places greater weight on abortion than global warming. (Not criticizing this, only describing it).

Fourth, as a result of the partisan split on issues, prioritizing abortion causes one to vote in a manner that would seem to allow global warming to continue unabated.

Fifth, this voting pattern produces cognitive dissonance, whereby in voting to stop one evil, the awareness of voting to allow another evil to continue produces discomfort.

Sixth, to mitigate this cognitive dissonance, the voter who prioritizes abortion has a cognitive preference in favor of information that downplay the existence or potential harms of global warming.

Seventh, over time, the preference for information that supports one’s voting habits causes one to consider as valid only those pieces of information that support one’s electoral choices.

I would suggest that this model is universal. Take hard-core environmentalists. They might support global warming over everything else in their voting, and as a result, selectively cite evidence that abortion is not really a problem. Or contraceptive advocates, who are likley to discount evidence that contraceptive hormones in women’s urine produces toxic effects in fish, and possibly contributes to the earlier age of puberty seen in modern children.

What do you think?

The cognitive dissonance is trying to show moral equivalence between the worldwide slaughter of tens of millions of children every year and the church’s admonition that we should care for the environment . We usually see such dissonance arrive around election time when Catholic Democrats are desperately trying to rationalize their support of pro-abortiion candidates . The Church does not require Catholics support any of the various schemes we have seen proposed the mitigate so-called climate change .

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely true. There is no controversy about Global Warming, it’s real and does exist.

That the world is warmer than it was a 100 years ago is beyond dispute. The dispute is over the cause and whether or not we need to implement massive new taxation and regulation schemes to mitigate a problem that like may nothing more than cyclical temperature variations that have been around since God said " let there be light"