AmericanPapist Comments
See here for a response to this post: http://reasons-and-opinions.blog...nti-
global.html
*sigh*. Where to begin?
I'll just scattershot some thoughts:
This post tries to argue that there is *not* a scientific consensus in regard to manmade global warming. The mere fact that he can site *so many* individuals who do not agree, proves by that fact that there is not a consensus, in any real sense o the term.
Amidst all this ad hominem, I see no response to the claim that the science is not so one-sided as to morally mandate a certain radical course of action that may actually destroy the very things it is trying to protect (such as the care of the impovrished, and concern for developing and 3rd-world countries).
Instead of reading a post like this and instantly grouping me with John Neuhaus's support of evangelicals, citing Michael Chrichton as an "expert witness" (he isn't, but his sources are if you've looked them up), and (laughably, I might add) end-time's believers ... can we just stick to critiquing me for claiming and doing things that I've actually claimed and done?
This kind of obfuscation of the direct question at hand (i.e., if manmade global warming is anything near a clearly-demonstrable theory), only leads me further to believe that this is a deep ideological divide and not an even-handed debate about the facts.
Oh, and I'm hardly the only Catholic blogger to have serious doubts about the manmade-global-warming agenda. The vociferousness of the critique one receives on this topic only cements in my estimation the instability of those who are its most vocal champions.
I'm sure this won't help, but hope springs eternal. Moving on...
Let me speak very simply: there is indeed an enormous scientific consensus that man-made global warming is real, and has the potential for dire consequences. The current consensus is reflected in IPCC report. Do people disagree? Most certainly, but there are still quacks out there who think the earth is flat and that the space pictures are a hoax. But seriously, much of the confusion arises from the fact that the climate change models cannot be accurate. Of course that is true, but that is always the case with statistical inference. What do you do? You use techniques to consider upside and downside risks to your baseline forecast. And guess what? The risk profile veers upwards, which basically means that things may actually be much worse than, say, the IPCC says. Unlike the energy lobby shills and pulp-fiction novelists favored by the deniers, these findings were published recently in Science. So, you see, it's getting worse, and people are realizing that. Inhofe is living in a fantasy world (butu what is new there?).
What does this mean for Catholicism? It perplexes me that Catholics would wish to close their eyes and minds to the scientific consensus in this area. What happened to the union and faith and reason and that "truth cannot contradict truth". A healthy sketicism is essential for reason, but this is too much. I have also noticed that many of the arguments against global warming arise from a particularly American strand of evangelical Protestantism: God wants Americans to be wealthy, the planet is yours to exploit, and anyway, the rapture is coming soon. Add to this the strong anti-intellectual strain that melds with voluntarism and you have a perfect denialist recipe. Your friend Inhofe fits the profile perfectly. See here: http://reasons-and-opinions.blog...ican-
right.html.
You mention the vociferousness of the critique. Yes, I do get angry when I run into global warming mockery, because the implications could very well be catastrophic for furture generations. It has the potential to become the ultimate moral issue of our time. Here's what I don't understand: even if you think there is only a small probability of such a worse case scenario, doesn't it make sense to insure against that option today? That's what sound risk-based analysis is all about. And, as the consequentialist president is fond of saying, isn't it better to err on the side of life?
Think of it this way: to ignore (and to deride) global warming is making an implicit value judgment that the welfare of future generations is less important than the welfare of those alive today. And that, my friend, is the crudest form of utilitarianism.
You also make an inexplicable point about concern for developing countries. I suggest you talk to some people from various Pacific islands whose very existence is under threat. And anyway, the whole point is to reduce carbon emissions in rich countries. But then again, it's all abou
Okay, this is at least more on-topic. Let me try to post some short responses to your statements.
1) The veracity and objectivity of the IPCC report, in my analysis, has been seriously called into question.
2) doubting manmade global warming is not equal to thinking the earth is flat. it's more unreasonable to claim that the miniscule impact of humanity on global weather trends outweights the far more massive natural production of "greenhouse gases."
3) fire-and-brimstone scenarios like you allude to seem far closer to the prognostications of the end-timers than my more mild-manered evaluation of the earth's (and humanity's) future.
4) I'm not closing my eyes to it, nor are sensible like-minded Catholics. I'm trying to keep both my eyes open: one on the providance of God and one on the prudence of Man's right reason. Take a step back for a moment, do you think that man can cause his own destruction through environmental-negligence within the lifetime of our grandchildren? Wouldn't that be to claim that Man has the ability to bring about the end-times?
4) I don't think skepticism in manmade global warming need result in waste, profligacy, and the like. I'm all about reasonable conservation that sees natural resources as properly ordained for human consumption. The earth IS ours to use, not abuse. I think we face limiting the legitimate use of the earth in our worry about abusing it. Are there people who are reckless? Sure, so go after that. Don't give as a reason "manmade global warming."
5) The ultimate moral issue of our is the crisis of modernism, agnosticism, apostacy, the culture of death, and a host of other things before its humans using too much of the world's natural resources. Issues that impact human being's SPIRITUAL state are always of more pressing concern than their physical state. Does that mean we ignore the physical? of course not. but let's get the priorities clear.
It seems that your doubts are unfounded, because you have not presented the reasons why you "doubt" the existing scientific evidence.
It seems that you need to read more about the subject itself (i.e. interpret the existing evidence) and start from there rather than starting with positions on the issue.
Okay, fine, let's take a small stab at this. I have some time on my hands. The argument, as I understand it, is that the human production of CO2 - a "greenhouse gas" is causing the earth to get warmer.
However, in actuality, the amount of CO2 produced by humans within the last 50-150 years, is absolutely negligible to a) the recurring natural production of CO2 and b) the presence of other "greenhouse gases", especially water vapor.
Simply put, CO2 is a natural element, one produced in far more abundance by natural causes (as mundane as cows) than human activity could ever match.
Those who say that men "cause" global warming must demonstrate the mechanism. If CO2, qua CO2, is that mechanism, than why does mankind's paltry contribution make such a difference?
Just quickly lead me through what this account doesn't consider. I'm completely open to reasonable persuasion. I'm trying to put forward a modicum of concrete dispute to see what kind of categories apply. Please, therefore, try to remain on topic, else nothing will get accomplished.
Ok, I see the problem with your understanding of global warming and here are my two cents based on what I (and the Vatican) have read which is the same IPCC report:
the amount of CO2 produced by humans within the last 50-150 years
1. Scientists have observed unprecedented high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years. Here is the quote from the IPCC report: The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. You should google the report and read it and see the data that supports the observations.
CO2 is a natural element, one produced in far more abundance by natural causes (as mundane as cows) than human activity could ever match.
2. Yes, CO2 is a natural element, but the incremental generation of carbon dioxide from many processes such as fossil fuel processing is unprecedented in human history. Every time you burn something you have two byproducts: water and CO2, perhaps CO if it is a partial combustion. Imagine burning fossil fuels found in coal plants, refineries, cars, trains, ships, homes, etc. and multiply that by millions of combustion sources and you can see why it is a concern and it is not a negligible amount of CO2 generation.
You should read some articles around fossil fuel processing and usage and its subsequent generation of CO2 and you will be amazed with what you will find. There is a reason why this country has so many regulations for the fossil fuel industry and its emissions of CO2, but more rigorously on NO2 and NO3 emissions because of their toxicity. If these emissions would not be significant enough because they would get "diluted" in the atmosphere, then why would the EPA even worry about it. I worked with some of the folks in the EPA and on the industry side as well and these are bright ones. The studies and computer-modelling that lead to regulations such as these ones.
We need to realize that there are extremists and radicals for every issue out there. Such is the case with environmentalism, social justice, and even the pro-life movement, such as those in Mexico threatened to kill those political figures that supported abortion. Sometimes we are so caught up with our own ideologies that we even forget what we are working for and as Christians we need to acknowledge this and bring the balance needed to the table. Global warming poses that challenge to us and that is why it is pressing to understand the best data available that we are and make decisions based on it, rather than be persuaded by political ideologies.
Oh, the only reason I can buy that there is no global warming at all is if a group of scientists say that there is a natural cycle inherent to the earth that causes this surge of CO2 every number of years, which could explain the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Katerina, thank you for by far your most reasonable, focused, and (for those two reasons) persuasive post to date.
"We need to realize that there are extremists and radicals for every issue out there." I completely agree. As I like to put it, the "abuse" of a position does not disqualify it's "use." And of course we need balance. In no post or comment of mine related to the abuses of environmental concerns have I meant to denigrate the prudent practice of good stewardship.
Nonetheless, my disagreement with the arguments for "manmade global warming" remains scientific and not political. My disagreement with environmentalist extremists, however IS political/ideological and I think that is fine because these are the areas in which they are acting.
However, the environmental extremists must use science to support their ideology, and therein lies the cause of contention.
Getting back to the science, and your comments regarding CO2, I maintain that human-produced CO2 IS negligible when compared to naturally-produced CO2 (and as I understand it, there is nothing different about manmade CO2 than natural CO2). This negligibility is only increased when one takes into account water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas (would you agree with this claim re: water vapor?).
Now, here's where it really gets interesting:
IF we were to do all that, for instance, the Kyoto Protocal calls for us to do and reduce human CO2 emissions, those actions would have an equally net-miniscule effect upon the entirety of greenhoues gases! In fact, such drastic measures, if they were imposed on the ENTIRE world, would no more effect the sum-total of greenhoues gases than is already within the normal paramaters of natural documented fluctuations in history!
In short, on the one hand we have the verifiable, serious human price of sacrificing worldwide standards of living, to yield what are in fact statistically neglibile results in terms of measurable worldwide atmospheric impact. I think prudence and an honest assesment of outcomes would dictate that we - yes, practice good stewardship, but at the same time voice a resounding "No" to the unreasonable legislation being proposed around the world to solve a problem whose solution costs far more than it can save.
Some clarity:
It doesn't matter HOW MUCH CO2 is in the atmosphere, or how much it has increased in recent years, unless it can be shown QUANTITATIVELY that it is causing global warming and nothing else. People are assuming that since recent trends in global temperature align somewhat with our increased carbon emissions means that we are CAUSING global warming. That's called correlation - not causation.
Increased carbon in the atmosphere may either be a secondary effect of another cause or be so insignificant compared to other causes (such as fluctuations in solar emissions).
We also need to remember that CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. If the only thing that factories are pumping out is CO2 rather than all the other toxic gases, we will be breathing easier. If through further study it can be concluded that carbon in the atmosphere doesn't cause global warming (because right now, we're not sure) then we shouldn't care about our CO2 emissions and worry about other pollutants.
That's called correlation - not causation.
From the available data and the conclusions coming from the scientific community, it seems that this is true. We can only do the best we can with what we have.
CO2 is not a pollutant like SOx or NOx are, but it does affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which in turn affects the heat balance of the earth, that is if the amounts of CO2 are significant enough.
The claim is that CO2 is not significant enough to affect the earth-atmosphere heat balance. Ok. I think it is rather irresponsible to rely on a mere thesis and not address what we may think is affecting this balance and realize it when it is too late.
At this point in time, we are so advanced in science and technology and we take so many safe routes and take into account safety factors, why not be conservative on this issue and realize that we are introducing a foreign factor that did not exist in such magnitude 50 years ago and study the potential effects of such factor? What is so wrong with that? It is a rather responsible and conservative approach instead.
What some people forget: even a small percentage can be a big change -- that's how ecosystems and balances work out. Too much or too little, even by a little, can have major effects.
Why not err, Katerina, on the socalled side of caution? --Because our civilization and very existence is at stake. Contracepting and killing chidren through abortion would be even more encouraged and perhaps mandated by the government since people give off CO2 with every breath they take and in their use of fossil fuels.
It is not possible to reduce CO2 without taking away basic sanitation and electricity from ordinary folks, much less people in Africa who haven't gotten any yet. It is not possible to build buildings with a significant reduction (to 0%)in carbon emissions as is being called for. Cars are too expensive as it is. Electric cars are even more expensive. There is no public transportation here.
Meanwhile the forests in Florida are burning and giving off CO2. But we are to be punished with exorbitantly high costs of living and the trees get off scott free! It is an injustice. That is why we should not follow Chicken Littles of the global warming scam.
Large families would be hit more by such measures than others since we have more people to transport.
You are talking about shutting off the basis of our economy especially at the pace called for by folks such as you. It doesn't take much thinking to realize that great disruption, suffering and catastrophe would be caused and especially to the poor.
We have a hard enough time as it making ends meet. The global warming scam is at heart anti-human life. Jesus came to save human beings, not the planet, which will one day be gone anyway. Your priorities are not those of the Church. Human beings are eternal, not the earth.
And it makes no sense since the largest greenhouse gas by far is water vapor and there is no power on earth which could stop the vast oceans from giving it off everyday!
Papist,
For you, the key is "sacrificing worldwide standards of living." You fail to understand that, should even the conservative baseline pan out, there will be devastating consequences for world living standards. You are stuck in the present, and not thinking of the future. A common error, and pretty much a core doctrine of utilitarianism. Again, I refer you to the Pacific islands. I've know people who are engaged with this problem, and they are very scared. Here's what Jerry Falwell said about global warming: "The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability." And that's it, isn't it?
Katerina explained the scientific consensus brilliantly. Your counter arguments are at best pseudo-scientific, and have all been refuted thoroughly in the literature.
Here's what I don't understand. Why would somebody who names himself "Papist" only show selective loyalty to the pope? We all know that the Vatican's stance on global warming is far removed from Inhofe and Falwell and their awful theology. Why is it that so many on the American right are "papists" only when papal teachings are in line with some American ideology? I've also seen the guy who runs the "Ratzinger fan club" defend the Iraq war. Now, he's entitled to do that on his own turf, but there's something really weird about professing to be a fan of Ratzinger and supporting a war that he vehemently opposed.
MM: you're too far gone to help briefly, but I'll do my best:
1) acting for immediate, palpable results at the cost of distant, unproven theories is not utilitarianism. It is actually more utilitarian of you to denigrate the standard of living NOW in vague hopes that something better will result in the future.
2) You refer me to the pacific islands? I refer you to the UN that is telling people in Africa that they can't build coal-burning electricity plants ... that in turn would allow them to boil water and avoid waterborn disease. People can move off an island, it wouldn't be the first time. (notice, btw, how you again strayed off topic.)
3) My "pseudo-scientific" arguments have given by scientists of equal repute as yours. Calling my arguments "psuedo-scientific" and claiming, without any proof, that they've been "refuted" advances you're argument not one jot.
4) Here's what you don't understand. Loyal Catholics are free to disagree on prudential/jugemental matters. The Pope himself is NOT claiming infallibility on these issues - why are you? It's people like you who wished to claim that the POPE was behind geocentrism that have to deal with the scandal of him being proven wrong by science. The POPE himself doesn't claim infallibility in regards to his comments regarding global warming - let alone one of his councils - let alone a spokesperson for one of his coucils. OTHERWISE, we'd have to listen to Cardinal Martini wax on about condoms being the "moral choice". This is called "creeping infallibilism" and a basic ecclesiology or theological methodology course would do much in setting you straight. I am thoroughly a papist because I place my faith in the infallibility that Jesus Christ gave to the chair of Peter, not each and every judgement the human occupant or his friends make regarding issues of primarily temporal concern. Am I bound to listen to them and consider them according to my reason? Yes. Am I bound to immediatly affirm each and every particular? Clearly not. They would not ask as much, and nor should you.
I think if you found yourself talking to Pope Benedict and told him that some people didn't agree that global warming was manmade, he'd ask you if they practiced good stewardship and those things that the Catholic Church *does* ask of its members. If they did, he would tell you that they are morally acting according to the standards of the Church.
Papist,
Full response is here: http://reasons-and-opinions.blog...and-
global.html.
By the way, I would like some documentation for your claim about the UN and coal-burning electricity plants in Sub-Saharan Africa. I have NEVER heard this one.
It is referenced in the global warming video I already linked.
Also, another thing that continually amazes me is the way my positions are categorized as being identicial to the "American right-wing agenda."
In fact, it has a far closer affinity with the international tradition of conservatism, which charts its most recent political ancestory to Edmund Burke, and has many current adherents the world over (for instance, several VP's in the European Union, the Americans tend to be in line with Russell Kirk).
Now, I'm not strictly a conservative, although I am "conservative-minded" in a general sense of disposition and outlook. Most orthodox people are. And so you can't dismiss my econtricities as being "American", or directly caused by being an American. I take issue with many positions of the "right-wing American Agenda" (though people seem to be at-pains to actually define it). Instad, you actually have to take on a far more widespread (geographically) and experienced(historically) demographic.
Anyway, I'm going to be on the road for almost a week. We'll see where matter stand when that dust settles.
acting for immediate, palpable results at the cost of distant, unproven theories is not utilitarianism.
Actually, this is a core principle of utilitarianism. Just flip through some J.S. Mill sometime. Or better yet, consult the first section of Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility for a thorough-going critique of mainline utilitarian modes.
People can move off an island, it wouldn't be the first time.
Is it really that simple? Do most Pacific islanders have the financial wherewithal to just "move off an island"? Are you advocating mass immigration?
Here's what you don't understand. Loyal Catholics are free to disagree on prudential/jugemental matters. The Pope himself is NOT claiming infallibility on these issues - why are you?
So I am free to disagree with everything that has not been infallibly taught by the Church? That makes for a fairly anemic faith. After all, Lumen Gentium indicated that non-infallible teachings demand assent from the faithful. I think you may have confused two sets of concepts here: 1. infallible teachings and normative teachings (all infallible teachings are normative but not all normative teachings are infallbile); 2. prudential judgments of States and empirical judgments of the Church (the Church does not make "prudential judgments"; The State makes "prudential judgments"). I would suggest that you re-take that "basic ecclesiology" course you recommended to Morning's Minion. I assure you, I've taken that course and many, many others.
Now, I'm not strictly a conservative, although I am "conservative-minded" in a general sense of disposition and outlook.
Since you've studied moral theology, you must see the incoherency in your statement. Disposition, which is used interchangeably with habit and quality in Thomistic ethics, forms the character of an action. For example, if I have the virtue of chastity, my disposition is one of chastity (this is a tautology in Thomistic ethics). This means that my disposition orients , shapes and characterizes my acts as chaste. In fact, we can borrow Pinckaers adverbial style of ethics in saying that I chastely act inasnuch as I possess the disposition or habit of chastity. Now, insofar as I have the disposition to act chastely, I may call myself "chaste." Returning to your very own words, you tell us that you hold the conservative "disposition", yet you are not a conservative. This makes absolutely no sense, unless you were just being clumsy with your wording. For to hold a conservative disposition is to act (and think) conservatively (a la Pinckaer's social ethics), and therefore we may adequately characterize you as "conservative." But like I said, I don't think you really meant what you wrote.
But let's get to the meat here. Like Morning's Minion, I'd like to see more evidence that you understand the science of climate change. I'd also like to see more references to eccle
...more references to ecclesial documents. You make very strong claims about things like "prudential judgment" and authority of magisterial teachings, yet your doctrinal hermeneutic does not seem to proceed out of the heart of the Church. You need to convice us that your hermeneutic is not contrived or imported from some other, non-Catholic source. I look forward to your clarification and argument.
But the scenarios projected by the global warming crowd are not real. What is real is that people in third world countries would also like to have electricity and good sanitation. The fact is that in the US we have to drive cars and even poor people must have them or else they can only work at the most menial jobs. So the poor are to be left out in the cold.
Speaking of cold, I love heat. Cold weather drives people to depression. Talk to northerners, they are warped and do not know how to be friendly or relate to their fellow man. Global warming will contribute to greater mental happiness.
Who is scaring the islanders with these ridiculous scenarios? The global warming crowd is totally irresponsible in doing so. The scenarios are not reality. Isn't it important to tell people the truth instead of assigning reality to a scenario?
The lying that goes on and the distortion about this topic in the popular media (Now show me a journalist who has more than a superficial understanding of science. The reason they are journalists is because they weren't smart enough to study a real subject.)and from people who promote this hysteria is simply not Christian. The proponents are not Christians either, so why should we Christians just believe what abortion supporters place before us? Minion, you are really opening yourself up to deception. St. Paul says to 'test all things', not to be gullible.
The incandescent light bulb is a good example. It has recently been demonized. The new compact fluorescent bulb is more energy efficient. Great. We all want more energy efficiency. But at what cost? The CFB bulb contains mercury which is a deadly toxin and must be disposed of in special toxic waste collections. And if the bulb breaks open, the people around are exposed to deadly mercury which can only leave the body through a complex and debilitating therapy. So at the cost of human health we are supposed to use these bulbs! No way.
Minion, prudential judgements don't belong to the magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Migliore is speaking for himself in his positon as ambassador. Also, I doubt he is fully informed about the counter-arguments. Europeans are subjected to brainwashing about this from kindergarten on. My children experienced the totalitarianism on this in the schools there first hand. People are not allowed to discuss any possible counter argument without being shouted down. The news media allows no dissent from the article of faith that global warming is man-made. We on the ground can see other angles of this which the Cardinal is missing. And since it is not magisterial teaching, we are certainly free to express our disagreement and work for a realistic approach to warmth. But you know the Church doesn't micromanage people and tell them how to work to adapt to climate change, or if climate change is really that serious a problem. Tell the oceans to quit giving off water vapor, if you want. The Church is certainly not going to.
Become a monk and pray about this. Now, that could really bring about true climate change, since the prayers of religous keep the world from being even more chaotic than it already is. Pray that the sun quit giving off so much radiation, if you want. I like and thrive on the heat, so I wil be praying that the sun continue to give off more heat and we'll see what God decides to do.
LvB : the scenarios are real ! Or you will go and say to the people driven out of their grounds of living that they aren't real !
I do really understand the difficulty to apprehend the exact amount of the human influence in the phenomenon of climate change, but I can't understand the denying of the phenomen ! It is blatant !
And it is not a matter of more confort because of more heat, but a matter of a global changes ! If the climate deregulate so much as to weaken the Gulf Stream, that's a unlivable clod that will reign in the East of USA. For instance see the doubling of the greatest storms, and the multiplication of twisters, and so. See my commentaries to the last post of the Papist on that topic, where I cite Tuvalu, and the hundreds of thousands of climate refugees of Bangladesh.
Yeah, the Europeans are brainwashed, but Americans who reject it - not on science, but no what it causes us to do to change our ways -- obviously are not!
Commenting by HaloScan
