Game Over for the Climate

[ekk1]

There is much that can be done economically.On a personal level, you can save money and reduce green house emissions by going vegetarian, which will also make you healthier. Raising livestock produces 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.We actually need to get to the point that we are sequestering carbon again from the atmosphere, but at least a reduction in emissions will slow down what appears to be inevitable. Perhaps some new technologies which make economic sense will be developed.

[FaithBuild18]

Global warming, be it natural or artificial, is entirely unstoppable.

I believe in personal responsibility. I'm sick of going to the park and seeing Gatorade bottles and beer cans floating down the river. Stopping this takes personal responsibility.

I may even have slight conservationist inklings. I love seeing the natural world and hope it exists for future generations to see. But I would never advocate the preservation of such things at the expense of human beings.

I absolutely despise environmentalism. It is neo-pagan, it is idolatry, it is Godless. The reason to be concerned about the environment is not for the sake of the soulless beasts and false mother earth, it's for the sake of mankind. Environmentalists are willing to wager the prowess and well-being of human beings for the sake of neo-pagan traditions. I would never support any movement that takes food away from the starving, clothes away from the naked, or shelter away from the homeless just for the sake of false gods, yet this is what many environmental agendas seek to do: Prohibit the gathering of food, mitigate man's acquisition of resources, and limit the construction of homes. Not to mention the correlations between the left (who are the majority of environmentalists) and abortion. Contrary to what they say, the last thing they care about is the future of humans. They'd sacrifice every last human save themselves for the sake of mother earth.

Through the sheer volume of reposts, people like the TC demonstrate a complete infatuation and obsession with environmentalism.

There is no need to exploit global warming and turn it into some twisted social justice issue, rallying around it as a cause for people to essentially worship the natural world. How about we take care of it simply because it is a good thing to do?

[FaithBuild18]

Originally Posted by ekk1

There is much that can be done economically.On a personal level, you can save money and reduce green house emissions by going vegetarian, which will also make you healthier. Raising livestock produces 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.We actually need to get to the point that we are sequestering carbon again from the atmosphere, but at least a reduction in emissions will slow down what appears to be inevitable. Perhaps some new technologies which make economic sense will be developed.

False. Have fun taking your fake B12 supplements (chemically different than animal B12), as you pop those pills so that your body can properly convert TCA cycle intermediates into other metabolites. Aside from some fat soluble vitamins and vitamic C, there is almost no nutritional value to vegetables whatsoever. Humans did not ascend to the top of the food chain by eating vegetables all day long. We ate whatever we could (when food was scarce), which included a good mix of both veggies and animals.

In fact, the world would be healthier if everybody grew their own livestock, killed it, and ate it shortly thereafter. The reason animal products in the post modern world are associated with cancer and heart disease is two fold: 1. People eat way too much in general. 2. The vast amounts of chemical additives added to animal products to preserve them. Raising your own eliminates both of these.

If you want to get the same amount of calories from vegetables as you ordinarily get from meat, you will have to eat a bit more than twice the mass of food every day. Such high intake levels of sucrose, which is 50% fructose, will inevitably (if you're a male), give you serious threats of gout. Not to mention such a high carbohydrate intake alone will make you much more obese than if you were to consume the same amount of calories of meat products.

Americans aren't fat because they eat meat. They're fat because they eat TOO MUCH of everything, which includes meat and especially includes carbohydrate rich junk foods like potato chips, cakes, cookies, etc.

Forget global warming. Eat less food because it's the healthy thing to do. Not to mention all the starving people out there who could really use a share of your plate.

[DavidinStLouis]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

Global warming, be it natural or artificial, is entirely unstoppable.

...I would never advocate the preservation of (earthly) things at the expense of human beings.

...The reason to be concerned about the environment is not for the sake of the soulless beasts and false mother earth, it's for the sake of mankind. ...I would never support any movement that takes food away from the starving, clothes away from the naked, or shelter away from the homeless just for the sake of false gods,...

...the natural world. How about we take care of it simply because it is a good thing to do?

AMEN to all that!

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

I absolutely despise environmentalism. It is neo-pagan, it is idolatry, it is Godless. The reason to be concerned about the environment is not for the sake of the soulless beasts and false mother earth, it's for the sake of mankind. Environmentalists are willing to wager the prowess and well-being of human beings for the sake of neo-pagan traditions. I would never support any movement that takes food away from the starving, clothes away from the naked, or shelter away from the homeless just for the sake of false gods, yet this is what many environmental agendas seek to do: Prohibit the gathering of food, mitigate man's acquisition of resources, and limit the construction of homes. Not to mention the correlations between the left (who are the majority of environmentalists) and abortion. Contrary to what they say, the last thing they care about is the future of humans. They'd sacrifice every last human save themselves for the sake of mother earth.

Through the sheer volume of reposts, people like the TC demonstrate a complete infatuation and obsession with environmentalism.

There is no need to exploit global warming and turn it into some twisted social justice issue, rallying around it as a cause for people to essentially worship the natural world. How about we take care of it simply because it is a good thing to do?

I haven't really met any of those neopagan-atheist-communist-economy-destroying-world-takeover-genocidal-baby-killer environmentalists that seem to populate your towns.

I guess there are many types of environmentalism. Most environmentalists I've know are moms concerned about their children and the children of the world. They have a sense of ethics that it is not right to destroy other people's food and livelihoods, and poison their air, water, and soil. That's what motivates all the environmentalists I know.

But if I ever meet one of those *#$(*&^$# NACEDWTGBK environmentalists, I've give him a piece of my mind about how wrong his thinking is and tell him that he's giving the rest of us environmentalists a really bad name.

Just send those types over to me. I'll fix their wagons

[FaithBuild18]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

I haven't really met any of those neopagan-atheist-communist-economy-destroying-world-takeover-genocidal-baby-killer environmentalists that seem to populate your towns.

I guess there are many types of environmentalism. Most environmentalists I've know are moms concerned about their children and the children of the world. They have a sense of ethics that it is not right to destroy other people's food and livelihoods, and poison their air, water, and soil. That's what motivates all the environmentalists I know.

But if I ever meet one of those *#$(*&^$# NACEDWTGBK environmentalists, I've give him a piece of my mind about how wrong his thinking is and tell him that he's giving the rest of us environmentalists a really bad name.

Just send those types over to me. I'll fix their wagons

So you haven't met an environmentalist with liberal social views? Huh, that seems to be the only breed I've ever met.

[ekk1]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

False. Have fun taking your fake B12 supplements (chemically different than animal B12), as you pop those pills so that your body can properly convert TCA cycle intermediates into other metabolites. Aside from some fat soluble vitamins and vitamic C, there is almost no nutritional value to vegetables whatsoever. Humans did not ascend to the top of the food chain by eating vegetables all day long. We ate whatever we could (when food was scarce), which included a good mix of both veggies and animals.

In fact, the world would be healthier if everybody grew their own livestock, killed it, and ate it shortly thereafter. The reason animal products in the post modern world are associated with cancer and heart disease is two fold: 1. People eat way too much in general. 2. The vast amounts of chemical additives added to animal products to preserve them. Raising your own eliminates both of these.

If you want to get the same amount of calories from vegetables as you ordinarily get from meat, you will have to eat a bit more than twice the mass of food every day. Such high intake levels of sucrose, which is 50% fructose, will inevitably (if you're a male), give you serious threats of gout. Not to mention such a high carbohydrate intake alone will make you much more obese than if you were to consume the same amount of calories of meat products.

Americans aren't fat because they eat meat. They're fat because they eat TOO MUCH of everything, which includes meat and especially includes carbohydrate rich junk foods like potato chips, cakes, cookies, etc.

Forget global warming. Eat less food because it's the healthy thing to do. Not to mention all the starving people out there who could really use a share of your plate.

the evidence is conclusive enough, in my opinion, that i diet extremely low in animal protein is far healthier than you suggest, and healthier than a diet high in animal protein.

i agree with your point on total caloric intake. the findings on the advantages of low calorie diets is compelling, and the mechanism at work at the cellular level is becoming clearer.

i also agree with your point about mire responsible livestock production. for one thing, bovines are not meant to eat corn, soy and barley. when fed their normal diet of grass, one ends up with meat which does not cause the cell membrane inflamation that we see with grain fed animal protein. this results in a reduction in inflammatory diseases such as heart disease and arthritis.

the first long term study of the effects of low dose antibiotic ingestion, as most people get from our food supply, has just begun. there is much theoretical speculation, but nothing solid on the topic. it can't be good for us.

my personal choice is to stay low on the food chain also to avoid exposure to accumulated heavy metals, etc. which have no metabolic pathway for excretion.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by Ender

I find this an interesting comment on sources. Here was your response to an opponent citing the Guardian:

And here is a source [GASLANDS] you find more compelling;

Ender

As you may note, I raised the issue of the impact of fracking as a query, not a fact:

I'm wondering if any holistic (cradle to grave) study has been done on fracking. I saw the film GASLANDS, ...

That's different from using known denialist newspapers (which the Telegraph is) or blogsites for scientific facts; just notice the way they twisted the scientific study on the wind farms to indicate something the study never indicated, dupping the people who don't take the time to read the actual study.

[ekk1]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

Global warming, be it natural or artificial, is entirely unstoppable.

I believe in personal responsibility. I'm sick of going to the park and seeing Gatorade bottles and beer cans floating down the river. Stopping this takes personal responsibility.

I may even have slight conservationist inklings. I love seeing the natural world and hope it exists for future generations to see. But I would never advocate the preservation of such things at the expense of human beings.

I absolutely despise environmentalism. It is neo-pagan, it is idolatry, it is Godless. The reason to be concerned about the environment is not for the sake of the soulless beasts and false mother earth, it's for the sake of mankind. Environmentalists are willing to wager the prowess and well-being of human beings for the sake of neo-pagan traditions. I would never support any movement that takes food away from the starving, clothes away from the naked, or shelter away from the homeless just for the sake of false gods, yet this is what many environmental agendas seek to do: Prohibit the gathering of food, mitigate man's acquisition of resources, and limit the construction of homes. Not to mention the correlations between the left (who are the majority of environmentalists) and abortion. Contrary to what they say, the last thing they care about is the future of humans. They'd sacrifice every last human save themselves for the sake of mother earth.

Through the sheer volume of reposts, people like the TC demonstrate a complete infatuation and obsession with environmentalism.

There is no need to exploit global warming and turn it into some twisted social justice issue, rallying around it as a cause for people to essentially worship the natural world. How about we take care of it simply because it is a good thing to do?

the problem goes far beyond gatorade bottles in the park. one of many examples is the pending extinction of leatherback turtles, the widest ranging reptile on earth. in necropsies of dead turtles, it is found that the ingestion of plastic bags floating in the oceans is responsible for one third of fatalities. leatherbacks eat jellyfish. they mistake the floating bags for their normal food.

if biodiversity interests you, then google the topic and look at mean biodiversity maps. we are extinguishing life on our planet. if that doesn't bother you, then consider that some ocean going mammals exhibit mercury levels more than 100 times a toxic load. they are at the same level of the food chain as humans.

our failure in stewardship is becoming more apparent. only humans produce plastic, expel hydrocarbons and lead and mercury into the environment in large quantity.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by ekk1

the evidence is conclusive enough, in my opinion, that i diet extremely low in animal protein is far healthier than you suggest, and healthier than a diet high in animal protein.

i agree with your point on total caloric intake. the findings on the advantages of low calorie diets is compelling, and the mechanism at work at the cellular level is becoming clearer.

i also agree with your point about mire responsible livestock production. for one thing, bovines are not meant to eat corn, soy and barley. when fed their normal diet of grass, one ends up with meat which does not cause the cell membrane inflamation that we see with grain fed animal protein. this results in a reduction in inflammatory diseases such as heart disease and arthritis.

the first long term study of the effects of low dose antibiotic ingestion, as most people get from our food supply, has just begun. there is much theoretical speculation, but nothing solid on the topic. it can't be good for us.

my personal choice is to stay low on the food chain also to avoid exposure to accumulated heavy metals, etc. which have no metabolic pathway for excretion.

It's very difficult for people to change their eating habits, so it might be suggested to go meatless one or two days a week -- like how about Fridays

Or people could reduce their daily portions. Or find some soy substitutes (that tends not to work for me due to the MSG they put in most of those products, which give me migraines).

The other health issue re meat is that toxins, such as pesticides, tend to bioaccumulate and are more concentrated in meat & dairy products than in produce. I know meat has been linked to prostate and breast cancers, etc, but I'm thinking it might not be meat as much as the pesticides in that meat.

We had to give up meat many decades ago bec my husband had high cholesterol and heart problems. So now he eats seafood & goes vegan one or two days a week, and I'm mainly vegan, but occasionally eat some meat or fish, etc.

We just had reading from FOUNDATIONS in my OCDS group last week pertaining to when it is appropriate for them to eat meat. Carmelites don't eat meat as a penance, but one time when St. Teresa and co. were traveling and their wealthy host presented them with a meat delicacy, a sister expressed concerned, and Teresa said something like "When we're in the convent we do penance, when we visit ___, we eat meat" (which to them would have seemed like a penance on their penance).

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by ekk1

the problem goes far beyond gatorade bottles in the park. one of many examples is the pending extinction of leatherback turtles, the widest ranging reptile on earth. in necropsies of dead turtles, it is found that the ingestion of plastic bags floating in the oceans is responsible for one third of fatalities. leatherbacks eat jellyfish. they mistake the floating bags for their normal food.

if biodiversity interests you, then google the topic and look at mean biodiversity maps. we are extinguishing life on our planet. if that doesn't bother you, then consider that some ocean going mammals exhibit mercury levels more than 100 times a toxic load. they are at the same level of the food chain as humans.

our failure in stewardship is becoming more apparent. only humans produce plastic, expel hydrocarbons and lead and mercury into the environment in large quantity.

And this thread is about that, with a special focus on how humanity may be slated for extinction caused by our anthropgenic global warming (a billion years before the sun gets so hot on its way to self-destruction that is sends the earth into a venus syndrome, annihilating life).

If God wants to annihilate life on Earth, including human life, that's His prerogative. We should not be doing it.

If we doubt the scientists on AGW, we should at least engage in those prudent measures that do no (or less) harm, that have no cost, or save us money -- which could reduce our GHG emissions by 70% or more. By the time we've implemented all those measure (in 10 to 20 years), we will know even better about AGW, and maybe some new tech will come along to help us reduce further without sacrificing even one penny.

Don't we owe it to our progeny to do at least prudent money-saving (or no cost) measures for them, if not sacrificing a couple of pennies?

I think there are many people here who are against intentional abortions; it would seem they should also be against killing innocent people and causing miscarriages on into the future for 1000s of years, as well, not to mention being against annihilation of all life on earth. I would hope that is the case.

[lynnvinc]

I had read that melting glaciers could cause small local quakes, but the following article I just read goes well beyond that:

Could a Changing Climate Set Off Volcanoes and Quakes?
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/could_a...d_quakes/2525/

A British scientist argues that global warming could lead to a future of more intense volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And while some dismiss his views as preposterous, he points to a body of recent research that shows a troubling link between climate change and the Earth’s most destructive geological events.

by fred pearce

Geological disasters might influence climate, for instance when volcanic debris blots out the sun. But climate cannot disrupt geology. Right? Well, actually no, says a British geologist Bill McGuire, in a troubling new book, Waking The Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes.

There is, McGuire argues, growing evidence to incriminate changing climate in the planet’s most destructive geological events. Melting ice sheets and changes in sea level can, he maintains, set off the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Indeed, thanks to climate change, a human hand may already be at work. Potentially, McGuire’s argument adds a whole new dimension to why we should be worried about climate change.

The most solid evidence for climatic influence on geology comes from the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, says McGuire, who is a volcanologist and professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London...

Just one scientist's perspective, but something to watch....

[ekk1]

Reflecting on this topic, and also on the potential role of the Catholic Church, I recall Prime Minister Brown's opinion that our greatest problems are of a trans-national nature. A solution to the global warming problem, a solution to the other pollution problems, a solution to poverty... will not be realized on a national level. These solutions require international collaboration.

Why has the Catholic Church not stepped up? It is one of the few international organizations with the stature and resources to take a leadership role. Why has it not done so? But rather than dwell on failure, who will lead into the future? Will the Church continue to slide into inevitable oblivion, or will it change course and assume a leadership role?

In my archdiocese, there are currently three seminarians who will become priests this year. There are 15 priests who have reached the age of 75, and who are retiring. Last year, two graduates replaced 13 retirees.

I believe that if the Catholic Church stepped into the present, and anticipated the future in a morally responsible way, then there would be more new priests and nuns than retirees.

Getting bogged down in idiotic arguments of whether global warming is real. Protecting child molesters, imagining that scandal can be prevented by sticking one's head in the sand. Holding stalwart against basic human rights. This sort of behavior is eroding the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Yet, the Catholic Church has incredible potential as a positive force in the world. It has a rich and long tradition. It seems now to be squandering its moral, social, and political wealth on petty issues, when it could be a great force for good in the world.

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

By AGW, I mean anthropogenic global warming.

Here are some Church writings on it:

po18guy asked you for the quotes in context. You have done the exact opposite by taking them totally out of context by absurdly selective elisions and ellipses to distort their meaning. For example your first quote where you claimed Pope John Paul said ]
“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone...The...'greenhouse effect' has now reached crisis proportions...”
what he actually said, including the parts you cut out, was

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related "greenhouse effect"has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands."

The quote about "Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone." actually appears much later in the statement, not immediately before the reference to "greenhhouse efffect" as you falsely put into his mouth. He was referring to ALL negative effects that man's actions may have on the environment, insclusing pollution of all kinds (the greenhouse effect has nothing tot do with pollution).

And of course the greenhouse effect is not "related" to the ozone "hole" (thinning) in fact they tend to counteract each other if anything. The pope got his science wrong on that point. Popes are not infallible on questions of science.

Nowehere in this otr the other two statements you (extremely distortedly) quoted from, is it stated that man-made global warming is about to have catastrophic effects, much less advocates any particular way to try to combat it such as imposing taxes on so-called "carbon polluters" [sic}.

[lynnvinc]

Originally Posted by FaithBuild18

So you haven't met an environmentalist with liberal social views? Huh, that seems to be the only breed I've ever met.

What do you mean by "liberal social views?" -- the view that we should stop harming and killing people. I'd call that the Christian thing to do.

It is possible to be concerned about the environment for selfish reasons -- so one's own children & progeny will be able to survive and thrive. Among those there are many who would support abortion for other people so their own kids can have more. I don't really consider them to be environmentalists, just selfish, evil people.

I do point out to real environmentalists who support abortion as a means to "save the earth" (who are not in that selfish camp) that it's totally wrong and it doesn't make sense to kill children in order to save the earth for the children. Those people usually listen to me; it makes sense to them to change their views on abortion. (Which is why we need more Catholic environmentalists out there -- not Catholic anti-environmentalists who just alienate people of good will.)

As for those who claim they are against abortion, but in favor of harming and killing people through environmental harms. That's totally impossible. They couldn't possibly be against abortion, if they are against mitigating climate change and other environmental problems that harm and kill people, including causing miscarriages. It's totally illogical. They are just using the abortion issue as a ruse to push forth some other selfish agenda, or something. They may say "pro-life" with their lips, but they are pro-death in their hearts. I've met those types.

Also re the other conservative issues (e.g. freedom), environmentalists I know are very concerned about that -- they do not want the world to fall into a killer musical chairs of diminishing life-sustaining resources and dangerous pollution & enviromenal hazards, thereby creating fertile grounds for totalitarian take-over on the one hand and violent anarchy on the other. At that point people may be pushed by desperation to sacrifice their liberties for security. We don't want that type of world. That's one of the things we're working against, in addition to saving lives & avoiding health hazards. We envision a world of greater, not lesser freedoms -- like getting off the grid, etc. -- greater, real democracy.

It seems to me that Jesus was involved in doing good to others, healing them and bringing them back from death.

What's so wrong with that type of focus?