Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[kama3]

lynn, you’re hitting below the belt. Even the enemies of the Church know that Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council,

From The Pontifical Decrees Against the Movement of the Earth and the Ultramontane Defense of Them , page 47 from the PDF version which you can get at ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be
added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the
“monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on
the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and
to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Bellarmine
prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ
the edict of August 10th, 1684, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo
di Galileo Galilei; and under the head “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes
docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decr. 5 Martii,
1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear,
therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and
approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly
in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all
the faithful. Nay, more—and I call particular attention to this point— the
Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and
approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though
actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and
therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the
Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household
of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to
protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed
by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of
truth.”

Thus, not only a declaration (multiple declarations in fact) of heliocentrism as a formal heresy exists, but – as the book extensively argues – that declaration meets the Vatican I criteria for infallibility.

[Galileo’s] Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics.

Similarly, Darwin’s problems only arose when the discussion of heritable traits went beyond single species.

 

[kama3]

Personally, I am certain that “global warming” already has been shown to be a scam by charlatan “scientists”, and, like them,

Global warming is a natural consequence of known physics. Claiming that AGW is false equals claiming that physicists do not understand radiative heat transfer.

Anthropogenic global warming has been predicted back in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius in a paper titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground which you can get online by putting the title into Google. Not only did he predict the warming with CO2 increase, but his calculation of temperature increase is roughly in line with contemporary predictions.

I’ll be interested to hear your proof that Arrhenius was a member of some liberal conspiracy which extended back to 1896.

is being used by Democrat politicians to raise billions of tax dollars, e.g., Cap and Trade.

The fact that AGW is used by politicians to push questionable legislation has nothing to do with the reality of AGW.

 

[David_Castlen]

I second that global warming being caused by humans is not a “given”. As many notable/respected scientists as not argue it is as likely the result of normal climate change as human impact…dramatic climate change is not new to our world (think ice age). I would guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle with human behavior playing a part, normal variations over millenia in temperature playing a greater part. In any event, I don’t think it’s a “moral” issue - even the most ardent among those who posit that human behavior is wholly responsible point to decades, if not centuries, of human behavior being the cumulative cause of global warming. I’m not sure that we had the knowledge years ago that we have today about these things to be able to reasonably call it a “moral” issue, and certainly not to equate it with the informed decision to abort a baby.

While some species like polar bears are suffering presently, we also have to celebrate that we’ve made major strides for many other species. Bald Eagles are making a huge resurgence, for example. Timber wolves, mountain lions - many American species are making strong comebacks. But we must coexist with our environment, and it’s always a tradeoff, with us not always understanding the impact of our actions in the present.

If a man does not have recycling in his building so throws too much stuff in the trash a sinner? I think that’s a bit of a stretch. If he owns a refinery and dumps waste in a river, I would say that is certainly a sin and is very serious. But I don’t know of anyone in government who would argue that he did the right thing. It’s not a liberal or conservative issue - it’s common sense not to do such a heinous thing.

I also would reject the argument that today’s Republican leadership are all anti-environment. I think that’s a mischaracterization of their stand on these issues. The main Republican message today is that federal government cannot manage every issue. Federal intervention is the most costly, least effective means for resolving problems in many cases, and on that basis, some initiatives wanted by various parties are rejected - not because the goal is bad but because the method is bad.

For example, look at the issue of immigration. Some would say that because conservatives want the borders protected and for people to only come here legally, those people “hate” or are “intolerant” of immigrants. Not so. They want control over our safety, our costs, to invest limited resources in citizens and those who come here legally, to protect states that are overburdened to the point of bankruptcy supporting illegal immigrants and managing criminal behaviors along our borders and so on. They are against lawlessness, not against humanity.

It’s important as well to note that government is not so easy for either side. Any legislator will tell you that they have to compromise, sometimes in really painful ways, to get anything done. Should they be considered sinners because they compromise on their values, when the other option is to accomplish nothing? I would say it’s more moral to accomplish as much as they can toward a more moral society.

I would further argue that the difficulty in passing law and making changes is as it should be. Otherwise we’d be changing everything each time a new President or legislator got into office, and they’d have far too much power. Slow and steady wins the race.

I appreciate your effort, Formalysure. The problem you have, formalysure, is Ecoology is a reliogen. All of their beliefs are faith. The only difference between their belief system and Catholocism is Catholocism although a Faith based reliogen it does not violate reason; Ecology does violate reason. If all the people in the world believe the world is flat it still remains oval: such is life.

 

[lynnvinc]

“I wasn’t referring to our beautiful Church, which has always had great respect for science (in fact science arose out of Catholicism), and not only accepts evolution, but also anthropogenic climate change. I was referring to the Republican candidates in the U.S., who to a man and woman reject science.”—lynn

The Church does not accept evolution in any sense that term is understood by atheists. The Church considers that to be heresy.

I did NOT say one has to subscribe to atheism to accept evolution. I have always since Sunday school (where I first learned about evolution in the 1950s) both held a very strong belief in God and accepted evolution. As an anthropologist I teach evolution. What I used to tell students is that I never had any problem believing in God and accepting evolution, but that I knew some students may belong to religions that are opposed to evolution, so they didn’t have to believe in it, they just had to learn it for the test.

Giving it more thought I began to realizing that God is Truth and it was wrong to teach people it is okay to accept lies. God created the universe, and it is like another “bible” written directly by God, which scientists “read” and study. Scientific “truths” (provisional and subject to change with better data and theories, tho these be) are truths we must respect; to reject them because they don’t fit our political or other agenda is a sin.

RE evolution, I think it is an insult to God to make Him out to be some David Copperfield Intelligent Designer waving his magic hand, when we know God created the universe and life through evolution – it’s like a demotion of God. And God is so much more, beyond our finite and perverse imaginations. To paraphrase St. John of the Cross – whatever conception we have of God, we’re wrong. We live beneath a “cloud of unknowing.”

Evolution totally wowed me about God. My God is an awesome God fully capable of creating the universe and life through evolution. He is so much greater than our pitiful conceptions of Him. We could never have thought up evolution; we could only discover it. And there are beautiful parallels once we look more closely: the universe out of nothing; something extremely tiny at first evolving into something really huge. Life from tiny DNA strands that reproduce to the great creatures and the panoply and richness of life today. Jesus a tiny babe in a manger to the Greatest of All, Savior of the world. The Eucharist, so tiny, helpless, passive, and silent – the Bread of eternal life, God himself, giving Himself.

So in my thinking it is a sin to reject evolution and anthropogenic climate change, since God is Truth, and lies are the work of the devil, tho rejection of climate change is more serious, since it involves us killing people and others of God’s creatures, while rejection of evolution is merely a rejection of God’s ability to create through evolution, a misconception and limited conception of God and His abilities.

The Church has never taught that anthropogenic climate change is scientific fact–it accepts anthropogenic pollution of the environment, as does everyone else.

JPII and BXVI, as well as the USCCB and individual bishops, have come out plenty of times to say we must mitigate climate change. I could provide you a list.

And the 10 Commandments clearly state: Thou shalt not kill.

We are killing people thru climate change. The Church is most definitely against killing people willy nilly. Any Christian with a conscience could have figured that one out in the late 1980s when the topic of anthropogenic climate change (then referred to as the greenhouse effect) came to public attention, even before such strong statements by popes and bishops, which started in 1990.

 

[lynnvinc]

Global warming is a natural consequence of known physics. Claiming that AGW is false equals claiming that physicists do not understand radiative heat transfer.

Anthropogenic global warming has been predicted back in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius in a paper titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground which you can get online by putting the title into Google. Not only did he predict the warming with CO2 increase, but his calculation of temperature increase is roughly in line with contemporary predictions.

I’ll be interested to hear your proof that Arrhenius was a member of some liberal conspiracy which extended back to 1896.

The fact that AGW is used by politicians to push questionable legislation has nothing to do with the reality of AGW.

So glad someone here is scientifically literate on the topic of climate change.

You’d think that with the free education we have thru high school, and relatively inexpensive education in community & state colleges, and with internet access to further education and information, that people should have enough basic science background so that they could easily learn about climate change.

Once it became an issue in the 1980s, I made it a point to study it, though my field is not in the physical sciences, since the claim was that we were (I was) causing this problem that might be linked to droughts (and famines and death) in Africa and many other harms, even since the 1970s; that once scientific certainty was established they would be more sure about this – and it was established in 1st studies in 1995. However, as you mentioned the greenhouse effect theory was already well established for over 100 years and it is based on laws of physics, so it was only a matter of detecting the warming signal (out of a lot of natural climate and weather variability), and that took some time to establish. The scientists would have been quite surprised if they had not been able to detect the warming, or if the trend had been cooling, bec it wouldn’t have fit with the laws of physics and millions of years of evidence studied by paleoclimatologists.

You’d think that at least moral people with consciences would have honed in on this issue, and started doing whatever they could to reduce their part in it.

What gets me is that political conservatives have made this whole science issue into a political issue, forcing all their conservative troops to fall in line and deny climate change. This is truly an evil Catholics should be avoiding.

Better to live in our cognitive dissonance and psychological distress of either voting for a conservative candidate while objecting to his/her denial of climate change and the death and destruction it is causing, or voting for a liberal while objecting to his/her position of supporting abortion. And we could offer this psychological distress up to God. But we should never reject climate change science because others in our political party reject it (and to reduce our psychological distress), nor reject the evil of abortion because others in our political party support abortion.

Our stand could be (1) there is no sense killing babies in order to save the earth for the babies; and (2) there is no sense destroying our subsistence base and abilities to survive, killing people, in order to stop killing babies.

 

[KSU]

kama3, is it supposed to change my beliefs when non-Catholics claim that they interpret Church matters correctly, but the Church does not?

You can spin the issue any way you please, but the fact remains that nothing in your link proves the Church itself declared the Heliocentric theory to be a heresy. In fact, the Church was very protective of its beloved science and was publicly enamored of the Heliocentric theory before Galileo ever came onto the scene.

As you probably know, Galileo got into trouble, as well he should have, when he publicly broke his promise not to promulgate mere theory as scientific fact until such time as science proved it. Later, science did prove it, and also proved that Galileo was not entirely correct-- the sun is not stationary, it is not the center of the universe, tides and pendulums are not proofs of Heliocentrism, stars don’t orbit around Jupiter, Saturn is not a multiple planet, etc.

Still, it is true that some Church authorities–but not the Church itself-- violated Galileo’s rights as a scientist, just as he dedicated himself to very loudly and publicly violating the Church’s right to define its own theology. As I stated above, even Huxley, no friend of Catholicism, examined the case and concluded that ‘the Church had the best of it.’

Nevertheless, non-Catholics still twist and misinterpret the Church’s history of aggressively fostering and protecting science; they constantly attempt to make people believe that the Galileo incident shows that the Church is opposed to science and that its claimed infallibility is a myth.

Now, as to your claim that science has shown that man causes global warming because it has been and still is being predicted by some scientists, it should be clear that a prediction is not scientific proof. Are comets mere “exhalations of the atmosphere”, is the sun stationary, etc., just because Galileo said so? Did warming and cooling periods never occur before the industrial age?

More than a few anti-American ideologues and dupes in this country and around the world are salivating at the prospect of America adopting “global warming” as a mandate to sign and carry out the Kyoto Treaty, Cap and Trade and similar suicidal pacts, all of which are based on scientific/political scams such as “global warming.”

 

[KSU]

“I did NOT say one has to subscribe to atheism to accept evolution.”–lynn

I didn’t say you did. I meant that the atheistic junk THEORY force fed our school kids by the state as scientific FACT is heresy. In fact, it’s anti-scientific (everything came from nothing, and in ways that counter known scientific fact) as well as heretical.

“JPII and BXVI, as well as the USCCB and individual bishops, have come out plenty of times to say we must mitigate climate change. I could provide you a list.”–lynn

No, lynn, you cannot! You can’t show me even one statement from a pope or bishop that teaches global warming is anthropogenic. That’s why I said: “The Church has never taught that anthropogenic climate change is scientific fact–it accepts anthropogenic pollution of the environment, as does everyone else”.

 

[kama3]

kama3, is it supposed to change my beliefs when non-Catholics claim that they interpret Church matters correctly, but the Church does not?

Um, the fun part is that both the book I linked to was written by a 19th century, anti-modernist Catholic. That guy firmly believed in geocentrism, and was really dismayed that his Church finally started accepting heliocentrism, after centuries of “infallibly” denouncing it as heretical. Read this book, it’s very eye opening

You can spin the issue any way you please, but the fact remains that nothing in your link proves the Church itself declared the Heliocentric theory to be a heresy. In fact, the Church was very protective of its beloved science and was publicly enamored of the Heliocentric theory before Galileo ever came onto the scene.

This love was, I pressume, expressed by promulgating Index of forbidden books containing a blanket proscription on any works regarding heliocentrism, such as those of Copernicus and, after Galileo, Kepler. That’s a great way to promote a scientific discourse!

Uncritical apologists can argue that Galileo’s trial was not an attempt at suppressing science until they are blue in the face, but they really can’t deny two hundred years of attempts to suppress heliocentrism that followed – attempts documented by subsequent editions of Index.

Now, as to your claim that science has shown that man causes global warming because it has been and still is being predicted by some scientists, it should be clear that a prediction is not scientific proof.

Look, maybe the high school kids fall for this, but I find your attempt to teach me my job incredibly funny.

First of all, an ex ante prediction goes a very long way towards validating the theory. To quote A. Lomonosov: A third rate theory forbids; a second rate theory explains after the fact; a first rate theory predicts.

Second, what Arrhenius did, was to inductively derive a (primitive) global warming theory from experimentally determined optical properties of CO2 and physics of radiative heat transfer. Absent an error in reasoning, or an unforseen intevening factor, the validity of such theory is dictated by the laws of mathematical logic. A scientist will usually hold such theory as true (or at least highly probable), until contradictory evidence is presented. Eistein’s theory of relativity is a good example: since it can be derived mathematically from earlier established physics, it was commonly held as true in 1940s, although it made such predictions which have not been validated until 1990s.

To sum up, Arrhenius, basing on 19th century physics, has mathematically predicted global warming in 1896. 100 years later, global warming has been observed as happening. That’s as good as it gets in science

Did warming and cooling periods never occur before the industrial age?

Straw man. Of course they did. And they correlate with CO2 levels. It takes about one minute with Google to find the graph, and about 15 to get the ice core data and draw the graph yourself.

It’s very simple, really:

1. Paleoclimatic history shows that warming occurs together with CO2 increase. See ice core data.
2. Arrhenius has demonstrated back in 1896 why that happens – how the CO2 will drive warming. See his paper referenced above.
3. Human activity (burning fossil fuels) produces CO2. See high school chemistry text for details.
4. Atmospheric CO2 increases. See CO2 measurements.
5. We observe a warming. See: measured temperature increase (datasets are online), species migrate towards the poles (ask a biologist), glaciers shrink (ask anyone in Alps).

Conclusion: warming is due to human activity.

 

[kama3]

No, lynn, you cannot! You can’t show me even one statement from a pope or bishop that teaches global warming is anthropogenic. That’s why I said: “The Church has never taught that anthropogenic climate change is scientific fact–it accepts anthropogenic pollution of the environment, as does everyone else”.

Um, what’s so hard about accepting that anthropogenic pollution causes warming?

 

[socialcath101]

Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has happened throughout the Earth’s history…

Whether or not man speeds it up is the controversy… But we are called in Genesis to be Stewards of God’s creations… Think about that…

 

[kama3]

So glad someone here is scientifically literate on the topic of climate change.

Pleased to meet you

Our stand could be (1) there is no sense killing babies in order to save the earth for the babies; and (2) there is no sense destroying our subsistence base and abilities to survive, killing people, in order to stop killing babies.

There are two ways to address the issue: (1) reduce the number of people and (2) reduce the amount of pollution generated per person. These policies are completely orthogonal.

People who are for (1) are usually for (2) as well.

Catholics are understandably against (1), and there is no reason why they should be against (2). (There is some data which suggest that (2) is the real solution, while (1) is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.)

The problem is that there are some powerful interest groups which are against (2), because it would affect their profits – so they invoke (1) to scare people away from supporting (2).

 

[kama3]

You can’t show me even one statement from a pope or bishop that teaches global warming is anthropogenic.

Ask and ye shall receive, a Cardinal’s speech at the UN, as an official representative of the Vatican state, back in 2001: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20011128_martino-item98f_en.html

The second revolution began almost three hundred years ago with the industrial revolution when “knowledge” was used to obtain energy, no longer from animals or the wind but from coal and steam. That engineering feat unleashed the build-up of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. More than one hundred years ago, the Swedish chemist S. Arrhenius warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide gas may have dire consequences for humankind and now that phenomenon has been recognized in its full dimension.

P.S. In your world, Vatican’s apparent love of science manifests in nailing Galileo and denying AGW. In reality, Vatican has erred greatly with Galileo, learned their lesson and recognized the seriousness of AGW.

 

[KSU]

kama3, in my post #624 I provided a link wherein Pope JP II, in an effort to finally bring the sniping to an end, commissioned an expert study of the Galileo matter by scientists and other scholars. Their 1992 report reiterated that, for example, the sentence of 1633 regarding Galileo’s conflict with the Church was not irreformable (infallible). In an effort to obfuscate that report, in your post #629 you link to an anti-Catholic argument in 1885 by an obscure Rev. Roberts alleging that the Church was, what-- lying in order to protect the doctrine of infallibility?

There are no doubt some invincibly ignorant people (some of whom from time to time even claim the name Catholic) who are swayed by what you are selling, but please don’t waste your time trying to convert me with such “we know better than the Church” tripe.

As for your attempted treatises on global warming , thanks for the laughs. Your argument is that because there were warming and cooling periods before there was (name removed by moderator)ut by man (e.g., “Paleoclimatic history”), modern warming and cooling must be due to human activity because both periods show increased CO2 levels.

Yup, can’t argue with that logic! And please look up the meaning of straw man arguments before you accuse me of it.

Concerning Cardinal Martino’s 2001 UN speech, I challenged lynn to “show me even one statement from a pope or bishop that teaches global warming is anthropogenic.” She can’t and neither can you.

Martino, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, was speaking for himself, NOT the Church. He was giving an opinion of his own, not a Church teaching. Even so, all he said was “there is a new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributed to human activities.” Since 2001, of course, the global warming scam has been exposed by the infamous leaked e-mails of the very charlatan scientists who sold the world this sorry bill of goods:
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/20/possible-conspiracy-misreport-temperatures-found-media-mum

Martino is a two-edged sword, kama3, and you would be angered by his correct take on Darwin: youtube.com/watch?v=6AZuY22p0es

 

[kama3]

As for your attempted treatises on global warming , thanks for the laughs. Your argument is that because there were warming and cooling periods before there was (name removed by moderator)ut by man (e.g., “Paleoclimatic history”), modern warming and cooling must be due to human activity because both periods show increased CO2 levels.

1. Do you deny that there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? If so, please refer me to alternative physical theory of radiative heat transfer.
2. Do you deny that present CO2 levels are increased? If so, please refer me to the measurements.
3. Do you deny that human activity contributes to CO2 increase? If so, please explain what happens to all that CO2 we put into the air.

Martino, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, was speaking for himself, NOT the Church.

By your logic, when the US ambassador speaks at the UN assembly, he expresses his private opinions and not those of the US government?

At the UN session, an official ambassador of the Vatican state to the UN, stated that global warming is anthropogenic. Absent a disclaimer that this was the ambassador’s private opinion, one must conclude that he stated the official position of the government of the state of Vatican. The head of Vatican’s government is also known at the Pope, who happens to be, at the same time, a head of the Catholic Church. Said ambassador also has the Church rank of Cardinal, which implies being a bishop, hence, your request for a bishop’s statement on AGW is satisfied.

Are you going to argue that JP2’s position on AGW, expressed as the head of the Vatican state, was opposite to his position on AGW as the Supreme Pontiff? I.e. that he held two contrary positions on the same issue simultanously?

 

[Neden]

Liberals who stay could be there because they are so apathetic that they don’t know what they are missing. Also many really don’t know what the Church really teaches.

Another reason could be for them is that “Church” has more of a cultural value for them as opposed to a spiritual value.

Just supposing. But I am glad they stay. It is a matter of praying for them to have the grace to see and appreciate the treasures of the Church.

Neden

 

[lynnvinc]

“I did NOT say one has to subscribe to atheism to accept evolution.”–lynn

I didn’t say you did. I meant that the atheistic junk THEORY force fed our school kids by the state as scientific FACT is heresy. In fact, it’s anti-scientific (everything came from nothing, and in ways that counter known scientific fact) as well as heretical.

Science by nature is atheistic in that it focuses on the natural world, not the spiritual world. It is only through Christianity that we have science, because Christianity rejected the belief that the natural world was powered by anthropomorphic supernatural forces – like the sun and thunder gods, or spirits in the clouds and rivers that made them move. Christianity freed us to look for natural, not supernatural, causes – such as gravity, etc. Unfortunately some (atheists) took that a step further and dispensed with God altogether; but I would rather see God as the All in All. For one thing, man did not create the universe; for another thing, a person who can still the waters, bring the dead back to life, turn water into wine – well, I’m going to believe whatever He has to say. The atheists (like global warming denialists) simply refuse to belief what the Apostles have told us. But I believe them – mainly because they were NOT Exxon and Koch-funded elites with agenda, but simple peasants.

“JPII and BXVI, as well as the USCCB and individual bishops, have come out plenty of times to say we must mitigate climate change. I could provide you a list.”–lynn

No, lynn, you cannot! You can’t show me even one statement from a pope or bishop that teaches global warming is anthropogenic. That’s why I said: “The Church has never taught that anthropogenic climate change is scientific fact–it accepts anthropogenic pollution of the environment, as does everyone else”.

That’s disingenuous. Why would the the Vatican be striving to become “carbon neutral,” and why would the popes and bishops be telling us to mitigate climate change (AKA global warming, the greenhouse effect); why would they say it’s everyone’s responsibility (JPII, 1/1/90). Why not just tell us to build higher dikes.

You KNOW they mean anthropogenic climate change. That is the topic on the table that they have been addressing – they wouldn’t write big messages on earthquakes and our moral duties regarding how we should prevent them from happening. I suggest reading their messages in their entirety with non-biased vision; you will see that they could not possibly be referring to natural climate change.

What people will do to get themselves off the hook of responsibility and clear their consciences.

 

[KSU]

1. Do you deny that there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? If so, please refer me to alternative physical theory of radiative heat transfer.
2. Do you deny that present CO2 levels are increased? If so, please refer me to the measurements.
3. Do you deny that human activity contributes to CO2 increase? If so, please explain what happens to all that CO2 we put into the air.

KSU: I’m not a scientist, so I don’t deny or affirm any of that.

I know you understand the logic of my retort, viz: It is not “scientific” to say that because there was an increased CO2 level when global warming occurred before there was (name removed by moderator)ut by man, higher CO2 levels if produced by man does in fact cause global warming.

That is not a straw man. And I don’t know what happens to the CO2 we put into the air. Maybe, for all I know, it eventually goes off into outer space. I don’t know.

What I do know is that true science employs the Scientific Method we Catholics learned in High School–don’t forget, kama3, the Church (when it carried the burden of civil authority as well as Theological/Spiritual authority) developed that method:thumbsup: and protected it from mere theory, and then only at a very dear cost we still pay.​

By your logic, when the US ambassador speaks at the UN assembly, he expresses his private opinions and not those of the US government?

KSU: Not true; he’s not there to express his private opinions, he’s there to carry out his president’s policy–word for word. A wrong, perhaps undiplomatic word could destabilize peace. That is not strictly the case with the Vatican’s representative who enjoys a bit more freedom to mix in his personal take on issues of interest to the Church; the pope is far too busy to approve all the speeches of all his hundreds of representatives throughout the world. Somtimes the Church suffers for it.​

At the UN session, an official ambassador of the Vatican state to the UN, stated that global warming is anthropogenic.

KSU: No, he did not. He refered simply to alleged evidence, and you know that.​

Absent a disclaimer that this was the ambassador’s private opinion, one must conclude that he stated the official position of the government of the state of Vatican.

KSU: This is another example of how the “we non-Catholics know better than the Church about Church operations” attitude leads to false conclusions.​

The head of Vatican’s government is also known at the Pope, who happens to be, at the same time, a head of the Catholic Church. Said ambassador also has the Church rank of Cardinal, which implies being a bishop, hence, your request for a bishop’s statement on AGW is satisfied.

KSU: Wrong, as usual, kama3. You know very well I asked for a Church teaching on AGW, not one person’s uneducated opinion about evidence. Generally speaking, I would put more stock in your semi-educated opinion than Martino’s incompetent (technically speaking) opinion on many SECULAR topics.​

Are you going to argue that JP2’s position on AGW, expressed as the head of the Vatican state, was opposite to his position on AGW as the Supreme Pontiff? I.e. that he held two contrary positions on the same issue simultanously?

KSU: Wow! I’ve reduced you to nonsense.

 

[kama3]

And I don’t know what happens to the CO2 we put into the air. Maybe, for all I know, it eventually goes off into outer space. I don’t know.

So if you don’t know what happens with all this anthropogenic CO2, how do you know that it doesn’t produce global warming?

I know you understand the logic of my retort, viz: It is not “scientific” to say that because there was an increased CO2 level when global warming occurred before there was (name removed by moderator)ut by man, higher CO2 levels if produced by man does in fact cause global warming.

Past climate reconstruction is largely irrelevant here. It is useful, but far from the cornerstone of the AGW science.

Svante Arrhenius has derived AGW from basic physics a century before any such effect has been observed. That’s scientific method at it’s finest. So, again: what are your arguments against Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, that you refuse to accept its (observationally supported!) conclusions?

KSU: Not true; he’s not there to express his private opinions, he’s there to carry out his president’s policy–word for word. A wrong, perhaps undiplomatic word could destabilize peace. That is not strictly the case with the Vatican’s representative who enjoys a bit more freedom to mix in his personal take on issues of interest to the Church; the pope is far too busy to approve all the speeches of all his hundreds of representatives throughout the world. Somtimes the Church suffers for it.

Interesting. Please provide me the link to a Vatican document which states, that Vatican’s ambassador to the UN expresses his own opinions and not these of his government (=the Pope and his State Secretariat). That would make him the only ambassador in the world with such liberty. Alternatively, please provide me with evidence that the State Secretariat, which the ambassador reports to directly, runs Vatican’s foreign policy independently of the Pope’s will.

 

[lynnvinc]

So I think I’ve got this straight now. Liberals totally sinful – they are too compassionate toward women having abortions (but not toward the babies being aborted); they are too compassionate toward gays struggling to get on their partner’s insurance and have other benefits married people have (but not toward helping gays get out of their sin and go to heaven, or protect heterosexual marriage and make sure all those who have taken vows of Holy Matrimony never ever are unfaithful or get a divorce). And even if liberals are against those sinful things (like me), then they are in favor of universal health care and other programs that would help mothers want to keep their babies and help gays get medical coverage without having to get married, but by sinfully spending selfish people’s money to do so…which amounts to grand larceny. They all, every last one of them, are headed for hell in a hand-basket.

OTOH, conservatives are totally sin-free and as spotless as Jesus Himself, and are right on ALL issues - including, global warming is not happening, and if it is, then it’s due to natural causes (and we humans are certainly not killing people through it, esp not the conservatives); and evolution is the figment of some depraved atheist’s mind, created to make everyone atheist; and anyone who believes in it (not conservatives, who are spotless) is surely going to hell.

Is that a good summary of this discussion? I myself wonder why liberals stay in the American Catholic Church, and not get over to the Roman Catholic Church, where they belong (you know how liberal and horrible those Europeans are).

 

[KSU]

So I think I’ve got this straight now. Liberals totally sinful – they are too compassionate toward women having abortions (but not toward the babies being aborted); they are too compassionate toward gays struggling to get on their partner’s insurance and have other benefits married people have (but not toward helping gays get out of their sin and go to heaven, or protect heterosexual marriage and make sure all those who have taken vows of Holy Matrimony never ever are unfaithful or get a divorce). And even if liberals are against those sinful things (like me), then they are in favor of universal health care and other programs that would help mothers want to keep their babies and help gays get medical coverage without having to get married, but by sinfully spending selfish people’s money to do so…which amounts to grand larceny. They all, every last one of them, are headed for hell in a hand-basket.

OTOH, conservatives are totally sin-free and as spotless as Jesus Himself, and are right on ALL issues - including, global warming is not happening, and if it is, then it’s due to natural causes (and we humans are certainly not killing people through it, esp not the conservatives); and evolution is the figment of some depraved atheist’s mind, created to make everyone atheist; and anyone who believes in it (not conservatives, who are spotless) is surely going to hell.

Is that a good summary of this discussion? I myself wonder why liberals stay in the American Catholic Church, and not get over to the Roman Catholic Church, where they belong (you know how liberal and horrible those Europeans are).

You have it exactly backwards; liberals ARE the American Catholic Church, but pretend to be in the Roman Catholic Church. They snivel and complain constantly, and try to destroy Church teaching in an attempt to remake the Church in accord with their own proclivties toward sins of the flesh and the world, mostly homosexuality and Socialism.

That’s why this thread exists, and is why the Catholic Church had to start to reform the reform.