AmericanPapist Comments
The Nobel Committee really deserves to take it on the chin for this one, AlGore. More importantly, those who fund the modern prizes (as current donations are still necessary) need to know they are looking stupid for funding some of these clamour awards coming out of Stockholm lately.
They would burn the heretics at the stake, but that would add to...well, you know...
What is so silly about the argument about funding from Exxon is that the majority of the pro-human caused climate changers receive money through government grants. If they go against the new climate orthodoxies they will lose their grants and it is fairly well documented that a lot of stupid grants have been made just because somewhere in them they mention climate change.
As Jeff said, the follow-the-money sword cuts both ways. Personally, I'd go for a double-blind research cage deathmatch.
How is denial of MMGW consistent with Catholic teaching?
Ray: It isn't. The people who spout off like this don't care what the Church says on the subject. Too busy masquerading their political agenda under a Catholic veneer, while ignoring repeated comments from the Vatican about the fact that Catholics need to be good stewards of the environment.
Being a good steward is not equal to demanding resources be spent on politically correct projects that accomplish little, or spent on 'population control' as an aide to limit 'global warming'. The putting man as the 'ruin' of the earth (only remedy is to limit the existence of man) is a clear contradiction with Church teaching. The counter-science propaganda being thrust down our throats, and the unwillingness to discuss stewardship in terms of REALITY, indicates another agenda- the use of this 'emotional' issue as an excuse for world government, with a whole slew of side goals, none of which include any reference to the Creator. The Church has been careful to distinguish between the need for good stewardship and good use of God's gifts, and the sort of secular despair that is being used to control the freedom of the God's people.
You need to listen to the WHOLE message .'Pick and CHoose' is not Catholic.
Jeffrey, you are flat out wrong. Both the advocacy and the denial of MMGW are compatable with Catholic teaching.
I think Mike has a point.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0702383.htm
John Carr, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' secretary for social development and world peace, said Christian values seen in "the virtue of prudence, the pursuit of the common good and the protection of the poor" are important contributions to the climate-change debate and should be at the heart of policies aimed at addressing global warming.
Because real consensus among politicians and scientists is not around the corner, the church can still band divergent groups together under its universal umbrella of Christian values.
The Catholic Church is "not the Sierra Club at prayer," Carr told CNS; it embodies centuries of tradition of calling for "sacrifice, restraint, moderation," promoting the common good and the option for the poor.
Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the justice and peace council, said the church's concern for the environment and creation goes all the way back to the Book of Genesis. In the two stories of creation, God gave humankind the mandate to subdue and have dominion over the earth, but he also expected humanity "to cultivate and care for it," he said.
Humanity's dominion over creation "does not have to be despotic" nor should it be used for purely selfish and economic needs, he said. Hurting the environment is a sin, he told reporters, as it "is an offense not only against yourself, but against all others" whose lives depend on its resources.
Nonetheless, he said, the Vatican is cautious about what sort of pronouncements it makes about global warming.
Church leaders are aware scientific findings can sometimes be skewed by special-interest groups or overblown by an audience-hungry media.
The church, therefore, "seeks to draw fully from the treasury" of all scientific knowledge and experience and looks for "a true and balanced response" based on church teaching, Cardinal Martino said.
The church does not want to curb sustainable development, especially in impoverished nations, nor does it see population control as a way to conserve dwindling resources. There is a middle ground, many church leaders say, that sees sustainable economic growth, the environment and human development as partners, not enemies.
But when 5 percent of the world's population gobbles up 20 percent of the earth's resources, lifestyle changes are important, said Cardinal Martino and Pope Benedict XVI.
I'm still hopeful that we move quickly to renewables as quickly as we can. Melting glaciers and record reductions in polar ice caps are enough for me. (I live in Manhattan and we can't afford to be 'wrong').
We've had way too many years of inaction when the technology and resources are there. There's no 'bold American leadership on this issue.'
Since 9/11 we have been funding the securitization of American interests in middle eastern petroleum resources with far more $ than we would likely ever need to replace every coal and oil burning power plant in America.
"Since 9/11 we have been funding the securitization(?) of American interests in middle(sic) eastern(sic) petroleum resources..."
Mmmm! Love that Kool-aid!
Ray's absolutely correct. It's not just us--it's also India and China--but considering how much oil we consume per capita, most of the blame belongs on our shoulders. Higher oil prices means more money for Saudi princes, who need to placate extremists so that they themselves aren't attacked. So what do they do? They funnel money to madrasas that have highly questionable leaders and and export Wahabism, or an extreme strain of Islam.
It's not even just about Saudi Arabia, either. Look at Iran. When the price of barrel for oil was in the 20s in the late 90s, they were seeking to engage the West. In Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil producer and where we get 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, does anyone really think Chavez would have much clout beyond his own state if his coffers weren't overflowing with oil money?
Cars with better gas mileage and lower speed limits, among numerous other measures we can take, not only make us less dependent on others, but it also would force others to change their own ways--from drying up funds to support extremism to diversifying an economy which can lead to greater democracy. Unfortunately, too many people, from politicians to industry executives to the average American Joe, want to maintain the status quo and not be inconvenienced rather than make our country safer. It's not about Kool-Aid. It's about common sense.
Commenting by HaloScan
