AmericanPapist Comments
I wish this would trickle down to our diocese's "Peace and Social Justice" office. They ran a three page article last month that basically said the third world was DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YOU! We need less hysteria from the church and the scientific community.
As should be expected the Church is interested in the TRUTH, and what God wants us to do vis his creatures and this world he gave us. Hyperbole and hysteria is NOT what the true Church should be about.
I wrote this, in case you're interested:
Global Warming: Not a Partisan Issue
Don't forget about Pope John Paul II who several times linked human activity to climate change.:
Pope John Paul II on Human Agency and Climate Change
I do not think he qualifies as an environmental lobby.
Michael and Katerina, why not take a gander at Cardinal Pell's pronouncements on this issue. After all, he could be Pope one day and you may wish then to cite his views. Tom
TJM,
We have, and I will post on them by the end of the week. Pell's views do not conflict in any manner with those of Pope John Paul II. I fear Pell has been grossly misinterpreted by those who want to turn climate change into a purely political issue.
Cardinal Pell is right in that there can be extreme approaches to global warming and nobody disagrees with that. There are always extreme parties for every controversy and we need to watch out for that as we start to make our own evaluations of the problem. However, the issue itself cannot be equated to an approach that evolves into a movement in its own right. In other words, we can't dismiss global warming altogether, just because there are political agendas approaching the issue wrongly. We have a duty as Christians to understand the problem we are facing.
Thomas forgot to copy and paste this part of Cardinal Martino's remarks:
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.
Emphasis mine.
Thomas also forgot to copy this portion, which emphasizes the moral dimension of this issue that the Vatican wants to remind us of:
The Vatican is reminding people that the environment and development cannot be helped by economics, science or politics alone, "that there are moral, ethical considerations" to take into account, said Silecchia.
Silecchia is the professor of environmental law at CUA.
I didn't quote those two sections because I presumed everyone would be in agreement about them. The dispute in this combox (I hope) isn't about the ethics of good stewardship, but about the particular problems and proposed solutions. At the beginning of my comments I urge folks to read the whole article.
"In other words, we can't dismiss global warming altogether, just because there are political agendas approaching the issue wrongly."
Yes, but some of us can spend most their time making sure people are aware of these abuses. The extremes are the people who are arguing for specific actions to be taken. And until I see some content and particular propscriptions written out by the middle ground, I'm not going to endorse their position. Again: its the content of what various groups are proposing that makes all the difference, no one disagrees that it's good to care for the environment and bad to waste resources.
Also, I never included JP2 in the "enviromental lobby." JP2 doesn't ask for rediculous social policies as do many liberals in europe and the United States.
"Lobby" I hope we realize means a specific body organized for the purpose of bringing about public policy and protocol change. I'm using it in that strict sense.
Perhaps this would make things more clear: if I accused the "homosexual lobby" of doing something wrong *clearly* I'm not talking about Catholics who are trying to minister and care for individuals with a homosexual orientation, even though both are - in some sense - advocates for a particular group of people.
So, in the same breath with admitting that enviromentalism admits of a wide spectrum of proponents, lets not simultaneously accuse me of grouping these disparate groups together. I am aware of the difference.
In general, it should be remembered, that for the sake of brevity I don't spell out explicitly absolutely everything I mean in a given post. That would be unimaginably time consuming. I will try, however, to clarify my comments where they have been misunderstood in the combox (again, time permitting and only if I see it yielding results).
American Papist, I wonder what you think the gain is for the environmentalists skewing the evidence of climate change? It seems to me that the vested interests and the money are on the other side of the debate.
You may be interested in this BBC radio programme which touches on this issue, particularly notable for Geoge Monbiot's contribution.
http://www.mrandmrsdodds.co.uk/
f...aze_monbiot.mp3
So what constitutes "hurting the environment"? CO2 emissions don't hurt the environment since CO2 is essential for all plant life and thus our lives and the lives of all animals on earth.
Noxious and poisonous ( using the correct definition of being harmful to life) emissions are of course bad, no one disputes that.
The global warming fanatics use all the classic tactics of an ideology. Redifining words to mean something else, but continuing to use them in the same context is typical-calling CO2 emissions polluting, for example.
It is taught about as fact in an unquestioning way in schools and educational institutions. My sons experienced this first hand in their German school. When they questioned the CO2 connection in a class presentation, the glazed over eyes and refusal to entertain contrary ideas were quite telling. There was no attempt to refute my sons' thesis. Instead it was repeated like a mantra, that global is caused by man.
Ronan, frankly I think alot of what the left has to gain in the global warming debate is a moral platform.
The left (at least in America) has caved in on so many issues (abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, contraception) that they're groping for *anything* to stand for. Enviromentalism fills that vacuum of meaning. I think the vagueness of the project especially appeals to them, as well as the ambiguity of the quest in terms of particulars.
Think about it, if the left didn't have enviromentalism to harp on, what would they talk about during all that airtime the right is talking about conserving traditional values?
Maybe this wasn't what you were looking for, but I think it's important to note that there are more than monetary/political interests involved here. Everyone needs to stand for something, and I think that many people who have sadly lost the ability to stand for personal values replace them with concern for the environment.
Disclaimer: Am I saying that *every* environmentalist is this way? Of course not! Does what I've said probably apply to many of the most vocal and visible proponents of "conservationism" in America and around the World? Yeah, I think so.
Ronan,
Excellent point. I see far more cash being spent by conservatives who want to discredit any science that suggests that there is a link between human agency and climate change. The ideology, it seems to me, is coming more from the Right than from the Left. The Right seems to be protecting corporations, globalization of economy and limiting government involvement in industry. I think Pope John Paul II is an excellent example of looking at the issue without partisanship and agenda. And, well, we know what John Paul II thought: he took for granted that there is a link between human agency and climate change.
Michael- You have yet to give any proof whatsoever that manmade global warming exists. For instance, why would Mars be warming up? What have humans done there? Why was global cooling the rage until global warming replaced it? Why has the Southern Hemisphere not warmed at all in the past 25 years? Why would the earth not warm at all from 1997-2003 if we are causing it?
How is global warming bad? Why would it not be good; after all, you would have a longer growing season? With all the money environmentalists want us to spend reducing greenhouse gases, couldn't that money be better spent in Africa feeding people? The earth has warmed only .5 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. Couldn't this simply be attributable to the urban heat effect since most readings have been taken in urban areas?
There is no manmade global warming, with numerous scientists dissenting. Those most gungho are often the scientists being funded by environmentalists, who have billions of dollars to throw around. If you want to accept a theory without any proof at all, then you are in effect making it a religion.
You should be more concerned with saving souls than saving the earth.
In any case, capitalism is far more conducive to conserving resources than socialism.
Again (something you have never responded to), why do South Korea and Japan have a better environmental record than China? Why Malaysia over Indonesia? Why Thailand over Burma or Vietnam?
Because capitalism promotes wealth and prosperity, and wealthier countries have the revenue to preserve the environment through national parks and stricter environmental policies. Socialism--redistributing wealth--has never worked, and socialist countries always have a worse environmental record than capitalist countries.
I would highly recommend that you get a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and be more discerning.
Gabe,
I have already indicated (here and here) that I reject any notion of "manmade" global warming. Why? Because climate change is a natural phenomenon that occurs with or without humans. Global warming, a natural event, is not "caused" by man in the normal sense of causality. That is where I think you are erring. Because John Paul II views man as affecting climate change does not mean that man is therefore a proximate "cause". Rather, if we must use causality for the sake of argument, we would say man is a remote cause only insofar as he affects the natural conditions in which climate change occurs. There is no such thing as "manmade" global warming. As long as you insist on only thinking in terms of efficient causality, I suspect you will not perceive the nuance of the pope's message.
To affect a phenomenon is not necessarily the same as to cause a phenomenon, as any philosophical or empirical analysis reveals. To characterize Pope John Paul II's position as one that states that humans "cause" "manmade" global warming is to jab at shadows, to build castles in the air and, in logical terms, to build a flimsy straw man.
I think I've said about all I can say here. I think I wore out my welcome some time ago. For the science end, I refer you to Katerina's solid post on thermodynamics to which she linked in a comment above (Kat's a chemical engineer, and I suspect she has more theoretical and hands-on knowledge than most of us here). Have a good evening.
Mr Papist
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we all understand that there are vocal individuals in any group who give a distorted impression of the views of that group. For example, there's a disproportionately vocal camp in the Church who promote disapproval rather than love, and so most of my friends think the church is full of bigots. I think you realise that you are presenting a charicature of the "bogeyman environmentalist", hence your disclaimer. We should certainly be looking at the vested interests on both sides of the debate, but we should also keep things in perspective! So, you have questioned the interests on one side of the debate, but do you also acknowledge the business interests on the 'denial' side? What do you think of the balance of power on either side of the debate?
Gabe
Can you tell me where the billions of dollars that the environmentalists are throwing around are coming from?
Ronan- Look at which charities and organizations the very wealthiest individuals and companies in the world donate to. You have huge amounts of money. These environmental organizations then fund studies, which is a main reason so many scientists in universities are unwilling to counter the global warming hoax. They don't want to cut off their funding.
Ronan, if you are so convinced about the scientific truth of global warming, how about attempting to answer some of my questions above, such as why Mars would be getting warmer and why global warming is necessarily a bad thing?
"in the Church who promote disapproval rather than love,"
I believe what you are admitting here, Ronan, is that you and your friends are cafeteria Catholics. I've lived in the excellent orthodox Catholic diocese of Arlington (numerous young priests and dignified liturgies) and the wacky liberal Diocese of Richmond (enormous problems, great priest shortage, tacky folk masses) to know liberal (heretical) euphemisms when I see them.
I'm guessing you have no problem voting for pro-choice candidates who support your stance of the global warming hoax.
Also, Jesus was not some 60s style hippy walking around simply promoting love. As my professor at Christendom for Christology Rev. Roger Hunter-Hall, former editor of Crisis magazine, stated in last class, no one would have followed Him much less wanted Him killed. He promoted a lot of disapproval as well.
Gabe
I wouldn't know where to look into charitable donations and suchlike! I'd be grateful if you had some links to refer me to! I'm not trying to catch you out, but to see what the basis is for what you say.
As for your remarks about Mars, I almost posted on that earlier :) Basically, I think it is a mistake to assume that what is true for Mars is true for Earth, and vice versa. They are both highly complex systems, and applying the science of one to the science of the other without the proper understanding is like quoting scripture without context.
I'm not, as you assume, "convinced about the scientific truth of global warming". Neither do I support abortion. Perhaps you took my words about disapproval to heart and think they were directed at you - that seems to me the most obvious explanation for such an insult, as well as the assumptions you make about me and my friends, and your patronising "jesus wasn't a hippy" paragraph. I will check out the Crisis magazine, however, as the article you mention sounds like it is worth reading.
Rowan- Here is just a few things for you to investigate how much money is poured into scientists who support global warming:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/arti...le.asp?
ID=10936
From Wikipedia:
"French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux points out in the same direction than Lindzen : "In the end, global warming is more and more enclosed with an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" imposture, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their works are in accordance with those of the IPCC." (translated from French) [86]
A recent film, The Great Global Warming Swindle alleged that the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming is a "scam" promoted by a multi-billion dollar industry[87]."
I was talking to a professor of Christendom College who has a PhD in Political Science and who is in my Christology class. He stated if you follow the money of who is funding these scientists, then you will understand why they promote global warming.
It doesn't matter if you are opposed to abortion; what matters is whether you vote for candidates who are for legal abortion. Catholics should not.
Yeah, if you want to know about the weather, ask the political scientist...
Although I recognize that people who post here are people of good will, the "Global Warming by Man" is as suspect as science as the "Global Cooling" being strumpeted by the left in the 1970s. The "lamestream" media hopes that some of us will forget that phase as well as the global economic collapse and mass worldwide starvation they predicted in the 1980s. When you lose your faith in God, you need something to adhere to and the secularists have chosen Global Warming as their "faith du jour." Know people by their deeds! If Global Warming was as serious as Al Gore says, why does he fly around in a private jet, burning tons of carbons and live in that energy hog mansion in Tennessee? He should lead by example if he wants us to begin to take him seriously. Tom
Gave
The documentary you mention has been widely exposed as a hoax over here in the UK where it was aired. Apparently many of the scientists who are featured in it later spoke out to say their results had been misrepresented. The reason I posted the Beeb debate above is that it discusses this very documentary, with the presenters trying to establish the enviro-lobby as big bad fascists trying to take away the right to free speech. The bit where they question George Monbiot is more deserving of your time than my own responses here, so i suggest you check it out!
Thankyou for the link and the wiki refs. Having looked at the frontpagemag article, I can see lots of accusations of Greenpeace laundering money, but nothing about the climate change lobby. If money is being pumped into the debate to artificially skew it in favour of climate change proponents, then what are the vested interests and who is funding it? Unless that question is answered, one cannot take those claims seriously. It becomes far more convincing when the claim is levelled at the other side of the debate, because business and oil interests have a lot to gain or lose here!
The global warming scam is all about truth, that is the crux of the problem. Do we follow a mania or do we do what is prudent and rational? Scientists have not shown with hard data that man is the cause of it or contributing to it.
Secondly, scientists are not impartial or more virtuous than other human beings. They are in fact more prone to arrogance and elitism because they are the 'experts' and that everyone is 'not listening to them is plain stupidity.
Who is conducting Nazi experiments on innocent human beings and cannabalizing body parts right now at every major university? Scientists. Go read about the Nazi doctors. The similarities in arguments justifying their 'research' is chilling.
Scientists are very specialized and very few, if any, have time to become expert in more than their narrow subject within a subject. So the scientists must rely on the honesty and integrity of other researchers. There is definitely a short supply of that nowadays, since seeking truth is not important, but furthering the PC agenda of academia is. Publications promote conformity, not creativity. Papers are not published which go agioanst the socalled truth of the editors.
At a conference in November at a UM Architecture conference, the Dean of the school, lied outright about how much energy was being used to heat and cool the building, despite having a professor who is a specialist actually measure the heat produced and calculating it all with instruments. The reason the Dean seemed to justify fudging the data seemed to be in order to scare people about global warming. The Dean is a fanatic about man being the cause of it. He brought in a 'salesman' later to scare the faculty even more and to say that codes must be changed so that buildings must constructed with zero carbon emissions because of it. The salesman was not available for questions afterwards because he was off to the next speaking engagement. The man apparently makes his living going around propagandizing against global warming. The problem is that no building can be built with even a 50% reduction in carbon emissions.
Guess what the material of choice for sustainable' (definitions vary)building is? Bamboo!
Now this shows what a bunch of self-serving quacks the advocates of man-caused global warming are. Reality or truth is of no concern. Also love of neighbor goes out the window. So what if people will have to suffer because of their mania! How are people able to heat and live in a building construsted of bamboo in a northern clime?
Also if man-caused global warming is such a fact, why do the advocates attempt to bully, scare and impose their agenda on others? Why do they have to resort to lying about the data?
Shouldn't that make any lover of Truth suspicious of the message being preached by the global warming fanatics?
So now we should use nuclear power. The nuclear power plants become so radioactive after 40 years that no human being can enter them and t
For A Non, Rowan, Michael, and Katerina:
Here is an article Ten Questions for the Global Warming Crowd. How many can you answer? My guess is 0 because global warming has no scientific basis whatsoever.
http://www.townhall.com/
columnis...l_warming_crowd
Also, great website for Rowan: David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org Great resource for the scam of global warming and a guide about the anti-religious nature of environmentalism and their funding:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.o...d=99&
type=issue
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
