What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It may be better if you start a new thread asking answers only from people who are very knowledgeable on Climate Change.

My opinion is this and I think a very reasonable one that the Church could go with… I am very CONSERVATIVE, as I go to a Traditional Latin Mass and would never vote for an abortion supporter.

I don’t believe CONSERVATIVES CONSERVE very much, they are loose with the public’s wallet just as most any other non-conservative. I don’t know that the science is there to support Climate Change, but I also don’t have much good evidence against it. WE do know polution is a problem, ie. air pollution, plastics, birth control and other chemicals entering streams and ultimately our drinking water. The government can take more reasonable steps to get a handle on these things without wrecking the economy.

There is a ton of waste in this country and Catholics should try to conserve the best they can, but the problem seems to me is that as I was arguing with a friend today says he has always voted Republican, but says now his first priority is Climate change, not social issues. So not the issues that matter to the person ie. abortion., but rather the world is more important, and that to me says that the earth becomes his god. I think that’s ridiculous. The world will end one day, and if we speed up the process, so be it as unfortunate as that is. I believe it would be better to save one more soul than for the world live on forever. I believe in the end, God would much rather have one more soul over having the world covered in plastic and fire, rather than to lose that one more soul, would you agree?
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
There is nothing realistic about a scenario that requires half of Britain to be covered in windmills and all of their agriculture devoted to growing fuel.
Click to expand...
Climate change is essentially a quasi-religion now, with the utopian vision of endless windmills and solar farms a modern day Tower of Babel.
 
Late to the party but Im not convinced global warming is legitimate.
 
Mr Steve B.

Let me explain something to you. Saying “not me but science” is a cool argument to have but in the real world with smart people around the table you need a little bit more. My job would be so easy if I can just quote a source and think its the end of it. It Isn’t my dear Mr Steve B. And Basic Chemistry says that.

I actually wondered today while driving to work? Do people like you believe in the water cycle? (I learned that in school and it is utterly false! Maybe take what else you learned and also question that! At least from an actual academic view please!) all water (either the ocean or rivers have a cycle)? It may blow your mind that one if the chemical units I am involved in actually creates water (like water on this earth is becoming more and this is but one of this chemical units on this earth) at quite a substantial rate. (How is that possible? PM me and I will explain) point is, humans are quite capable of doing things to change the dynamics of our mother earth.

More CO2 is bad when you take what I just said into account. Naturally it will happen but currently it is happening at a faster rate and this is the crux. I can explain differentials to you but that would be missing the point.

Kind Regards
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am approaching this wrong. Do you believe at ALL that mankind can “alter Mother Nature”?
 
“Let me explain something to you.”
“…my dear Mr Steve B.”
“Do people like you…”
“I can explain differentials to you…”

The arrogance and smug self-assuredness is overwhelming in this post, and yet he wonders why he can’t convince anyone to his point of view.
 
Tolle_Lege said:
Climate change is essentially a quasi-religion now, with the utopian vision of endless windmills and solar farms a modern day Tower of Babel.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. A week or so ago I asked someone what it would take to convince him that AGW was flawed, and he said nothing could convince him. That’s a position on faith, not facts.
 
It seems you are new to CAF. Here we address the post and not the poster. How certain posters react and view their opinions, well then it comes down to experience with regards to that specific poster. I hope that makes sense and you understand now.

Kind Regards!
 
Last edited:
OK, your post came off as overwhelmingly arrogant and self-assured and your post is completely ineffective at convincing me to your point of view.

I hope that makes sense and you understand now.
 
I am totally okay with that. I have no idea who you are. You can keep being what you are and nothing will change then. It still doesn’t address what I said. Think about that.
 
Last edited:
Well of course we can, with breeding, GMO plants, medicine, etc. Those are direct interventions between humans and nature.

But climate has been changing in cycles for thousand of years, so the comparison isn’t direct. Without fossil fuel use, the climate would be going through the same cycle it is now anyway.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Tolle_Lege:
Climate change is essentially a quasi-religion now, with the utopian vision of endless windmills and solar farms a modern day Tower of Babel.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. A week or so ago I asked someone what it would take to convince him that AGW was flawed, and he said nothing could convince him. That’s a position on faith, not facts.
Click to expand...
That was not a scientist. No scientist in the IPCC would have given you that answer. I don’t think it is fruitful to debate which group of laypersons is most scientific. The strength of a position has nothing to do with the nature of the people who hold that position (especially the laypersons - the non scientists). To claim otherwise would be an ad hominem fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Tolle_Lege said:
Well of course we can, with breeding, GMO plants, medicine, etc. Those are direct interventions between humans and nature.

But climate has been changing in cycles for thousand of years, so the comparison isn’t direct. Without fossil fuel use, the climate would be going through the same cycle it is now anyway.
Click to expand...
The fact that climate has been changing for eons due to natural causes does not preclude this current change as being caused by human activity, which in a sense is also “natural” if you want to consider man as just another species in the natural world.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That was not a scientist.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t. Nor was it a priest, a fireman or an Indian chief. It was a person like you and me who had taken a position on climate change that was akin to a commitment of faith. Regrettably that does not seem to be an uncommon position.
 
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
your post is completely ineffective at convincing me to your point of view.
Click to expand...
Okay

But now you need to explain HOW I Was trying to CONVINCE ANYONE? I was merely responding to a post (that responded to me).

Although that post can be read by anyone it just means it is on a public forum. I do do not know you or anyone else here.

I was responding to a “response”. That is how it works. Nothing more and nothing less. Me and Mr Steve B know this by now after almost 3 years of conversing!
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
you and me who had taken a position on climate change that was akin to a commitment of faith. Regrettably that does not seem to be an uncommon position.
Click to expand...
That is all good and well as long as it is based on the fundamentals.

My Company is spending MILLIONS of dollars (NO JOKE THAT IS WHERE THE WORLD IS AND WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLY) in trying to prolong the time climate change is a problem (Really I am PHYSICALLY THERE AND ASK ME QUEASTIONS? yet we have wannabe chemical engineers and chemists who read the magazine and then try to comment.).
 
ZMystiCat said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) ShrodingersCat:
I don’t understand how people can believe that they know more about climate change from reading a few internet articles vs. the people who’ve spent decades studying the topic.
Click to expand...
Pride is the number one killer of souls. It has now become the killer of wisdom, and will one day kill of millions. Paranoia really will destroy-ya, when it comes to seeing conspiracies in science that is trying to save lives.
Click to expand...
 
Or pride could be blinding many within the scientific community and questioning is met with derision as exemplified by snide remarks evident in this own thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top