AmericanPapist Comments
I lack the time at the current moment for a prolonged response to all of the above, but to simply touch upon your last point I would direct your attention to the following essays:
"Disaster Insurance" by Judge Richard Posner. Posner is by no means a liberal, and the Hoover Institute is one of the centers of conservative/neo-conservative thinking. Simply put, these aren't your typical doubters.
Quoting Posner, "[T]here are at least three arguments for incurring hefty current expenditures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the near term. The first is that global warming is already imposing costs, which will probably increase steadily in the years ahead.... The second argument is that there is a small risk of abrupt, catastrophic global warming at any time, and a small risk of a huge catastrophe can add up to a very large expected cost... The third argument is that reducing our consumption of energy by imposing a heavy energy tax would confer national security benefits by reducing our dependence on imported oil."
First two arguments seem applicable to the discussion at hand.
If you can gain access, you should also read Jim Manzi's "Game Plan" in National Review.
When the Church sallies forth into areas where they lack the necessary competency, they come off looking silly and officious. These are debates better left to the laity. Tom
I'm pretty certain that these Vatican officials are much better versed in the science of climatology than 98% of the laity could ever dream of being. What constitutes "necessary competency?" I don't know of many medical doctors in the Vatican or in the priesthood at large (Cardinal George's doctor is a Jesuit priest). So where does the Church get the necessary competency to speak on life issues? From knowledgeable experts.
Yeah, people may have been claiming in the 1970s that we were on the verge of an ice age, but the amazing thing with science is that the more you study a topic, the more you learn. Climatology was, at best, in its adolescent stage 30 years ago. People at one point in time thought the sun revolves around the earth. But as astronomy was studied closer, that wasn't the truth. That's just one of many examples of science improving our knowledge. And so it is with climatology.
I'd be disappointed if the Vatican wasn't using its moral authority to promote taking care of the earth, because the Monsignor is correct in that climate change will have adverse effects on a large portion of the population. That, therefore, makes it a moral imperative, and one on which the Vatican should take action.
"My contention is that it is so minimal as to be irrelevant on a global scale."
Read more carefully. Msgr. Pietro Parolin says this is a possibility.
______
"Finally, how can effective policy decisions be an imperative when further study is still required?"
Perfect policies could not be developed but effective ones still could be... why not start now?
_______
"I'm not sure exactly who these people are who claim we should "exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences.""
You need to get out more. These people are out there.
________
"But abuse does not negate the use: just because some people abuse the environment doesn't mean the environment can't be used legitimately."
He never defends this proposition. You are grasping at straws!
"Since when do these same bodies, so clearly susceptible to "group think" and politics, merit the support of Vatican delegates?"
The Vatican did not add credence to "Ice Age-thought", buy clearly adds support to this issue. The Vatican seems to believe 'these bodies' mertit their support. So American "Papist" why are you so adverse to good stewardship and Vatican inroads into this issue? A more appropriate title might be "American Republican."
Gain some perspective.
My contention is that it is so minimal as to be irrelevant on a global scale
Your contention seems to be based on prettty junky sources. For example: "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which you giddily proclaimed "devastating", and stuff like that Hudson Institute non-report you were trumpeting a little while back.
You show little signs of having done enough research into the topic. You show a lot of signs of making up your mind first based on your right wing politics, then cherry picking factoids and noise to suit your preconceptions.
By the way: none of the above automatically means that you're wrong. However, if you're right, it could be serendipity rather than informed choice.
"I'm pretty certain that these Vatican officials are much better versed in the science of climatology than 98% of the laity could ever dream of being."
I'm not.
Granting Nathan's line has a certain rhetorical beauty to it, can you must any credible evidence for the assertion?
Okay, 98% is an exaggeration. My point, however, is that people such as the Monsignor and others, including the Pope himself, who are charged with speaking on this issue are well-versed. You don't talk about something of which you have no knowledge to an international audience; someone will counter you and laugh you off the stage because of your ignorance. So, it's clear that the Vatican representatives do know what they're talking about on climate change because I haven't seen them laughed at just yet.
And it's not as if the Vatican is doing this to cater to the liberals of the world to try and gain their favor. The Vatican certainly has no history of doing that before, at least to my knowledge. So this is a cause that's clearly one the Vatican deems should be important to all members of the Church, just as it has frequently condemned human trafficking. Why should the Vatican stay silent on this, which will almost certainly have an adverse impact on the lives of many, but speak out on other, equally important issues? Quite frankly, I'm more interested in the Vatican doing this kind of advocacy rather than dealing with whether or not EMCs should be allowed to clean the vessels after communion.
The question is whether or not the Vatican has the relevance to actually make an impact on this; can it truly change the attitudes and behavior of Catholics and others toward climate change? As we can see, the jury is decidedly out on that, and I think that, unfortunately, speaks volumes about the Pope's importance or lack thereof these days, even if this isn't an issue of infallibility.
Headline I'm waiting for:
"President Bush Lacks Competency to Speak on Life Issues: Only has MBA"
I'm not going after the 98% part, which you happily conceded, I'm going after the still-undemonstrated level of competence you and I would LIKE to see in regular view of Vatican positions on this and that, but which I for one find lacking, well, more often than you seem to.
Of course the world (aka, MSM) is not going after the Vatican on this one; they are clearly in the side of interventionist global warming cabals that dominate discussion so far. That proves nothing.
Mind you, I'm no climatologist either. But some pretty smart ones seem to trying to get in a word edgewise on this, and I think they need to be heard without laboring under the aura of the Vatican acting as if it is baptizing the Euro-Greenies.
I rather like what Rich Leonardi had to say about this:
"One of the benefits of belonging to a Church with an infallible teaching authority is the limit placed upon the exercise of that authority. It clarifies what the faithful are obligated to believe and saves the universal church from future embarrassment"
- http://
richleonardi.blogspot.com...allibility.html
Tom is right. This statement at the UN shows a lot of questionable assertions. The Mgsr. has bad advisors who are not well-versed in the subject.
And if the theory of man-made global warming were true, then murdering and killing human beings through population control measures is inhuman and immoral and undemocratic and anti-family and not the way to go. This is essentially one of the proposed 'solutions'. Oops,kind of reminds one of the Final Solution so loved by a certain man who also thought he knew what was best for everyone else.
Yes, we are to be good stewards, but we are not to worship the creation and honor it above God and our obligations to our fellows.
Of all the stupid claims, 'rising seas' is the most egregious. Because all the seas and oceans are connected there's no way "islands in the pacific" could be threatened without the beaches of Florida, Hawaii and other real estate having NOTICABLY higher tides. Yet we're not seeing that ANYWHERE. It's all hype and hyperbole, not science.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
