Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old May 13, '09, 3:36 pm
Calliso Calliso is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Posts: 2,073
Religion: non-demominational
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue


I thought I would address these.

First the glacier one..most glaciers are actually receding.. http://skepticalscience.com/himalaya...rs-growing.htm
http://www.grist.org/article/but-the...re-not-melting

As for the second link well yes Antartic sea ice is increasing. But it is a mistake to think that because of that it disproves global warming. Things aren;t quite so simple.
This might help explain things. http://skepticalscience.com/Why-is-A...ncreasing.html

The next link talks about a mistake the national snow and ice data center made.


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html But I think the important part is this The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data. So in other words this mistake really changes littlle to nothing.

As for the next link umm it was an la nina year so yes it was a little cooler then some recent previous years. Also it;s not just area that matters but also thickness and we are losing a lot of the thick muti year ice and are being left with thinner younger ice and is more prone to melting. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

Next link I found this comment.. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-98527

However, the Fram , Nansen’s ship was trapped by ice further southof 80 degrees, North of Siberia in 1894, eventually, Nansen beset and bored, took the said kayak as a sledge and tried to ski to the Pole , and was unsuccessful. The Fram was stuck on the Arctic Ocean ice for almost 3 years mostly exactly where there is open water now!

As for the last link.http://www.harryrclarke.com/2009/04/...imate-science/

http://www.aussmc.org/EastAntarcticApr09.php


Also seems the article confuses land ice and sea ice. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...-ice-gain.html

So there we go I believe I have addressed all these points!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old May 13, '09, 3:53 pm
4elise's Avatar
4elise 4elise is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: March 31, 2009
Posts: 3,111
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender View Post
On what point do you think I am wrong? Please don't respond with some vague phrase like "climate change", be specific. Let's assume that additional warming will hurt the poor: what is the moral choice before me? Helping the poor? No one is suggesting that we shouldn't. Are you saying that it is immoral to disbelieve that man has caused the warming? Is it now a sin to be mistaken on the science involved?

I went to the source you suggested and found this:

The president and Congress are making similar proposals at the national level, setting off a major debate over how best to respond to the complexities of climate change.

So, which is the immoral side of the debate? I appear to be on a different side of the debate on how best to respond from you ... is it a sin for me to hold my position? It appears to be you who believes that no debate is necessary.

In a debate dominated by environmental groups, scientists and alternative energy entrepreneurs on the one hand, and by utilities, agribusiness, coal and oil companies and others with vested interests on the other hand ...

This is an intellectually dishonest statement that implies that those who dispute the theory of AGW are dishonest, greedy, and selfish while those pushing the theory all wear white hats and love puppies. Your source is not very impressive.

Ender
Dear Ender - I disagree with you. You disagree with me - I have tried very hard to be appropriate in all my responses with you and others - I don't think we are going to move each other so I will respectfully refrain from responding to your posts any more - you don't like my sources - so we'll leave it at that - peace
__________________
Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=90
CLIMATE CHANGE - Our faith calls us to action!
http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=488
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old May 13, '09, 6:27 pm
Ender Ender is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2004
Posts: 7,571
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4elise View Post
Dear Ender - I disagree with you. You disagree with me - I have tried very hard to be appropriate in all my responses with you and others - I don't think we are going to move each other so I will respectfully refrain from responding to your posts any more - you don't like my sources - so we'll leave it at that - peace
Since 4elise has said she won't respond any more I'll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.

For the purposes of this discussion it really doesn't matter which side is eventually proven correct; what is at issue is whether it is immoral to ... I don't know what. I am trying to get someone to explain where the moral choice lies. I don't believe that there is any moral question involved nor do I believe anyone can point to something that rises to that level. The claim has been made that there is a serious moral issue involved with climate change and I would like to see someone try to defend that position.

Ender
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old May 13, '09, 8:01 pm
cathybramble's Avatar
cathybramble cathybramble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender View Post
Since 4elise has said she won't respond any more I'll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.

For the purposes of this discussion it really doesn't matter which side is eventually proven correct; what is at issue is whether it is immoral to ... I don't know what. I am trying to get someone to explain where the moral choice lies. I don't believe that there is any moral question involved nor do I believe anyone can point to something that rises to that level. The claim has been made that there is a serious moral issue involved with climate change and I would like to see someone try to defend that position.

Ender
i would like to know why we have to prove man-made global climate change, before we make stewardship a moral issue. we were given that responsibility from the beginning, and we are failing miserably at it. it is a moral issue, period, it was a directive from God to take care of creation.

someone in this thread said we should first love God, and then creation. i would like to know how it is possible to love God and wantonly destroy His creation as we do.

here's ya something to chew on, from and article on the US conference of catholic bishops web site:

"Here is the truth about the Original Sin: humankind is relentlessly destructive. The human imagination is so diseased by sin that we defeat our own interests time and time again. We have depleted the fisheries from which we eat, poisoned the rivers from which we drink, and fouled even the air we breathe. Worst of all, we live denying these facts, which gives the full measure of our sinfulness. In this sinful denial, people could run so many cattle over vast areas of grass that they destroy the grass. We could cut down so many trees that we deforest our own woods."

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/backgr...ological.shtml

and here is what the pope said only last year:

"“The brutal consumption of Creation begins where God is not, where matter is henceforth only material for us, where we ourselves are the ultimate demand, where the whole is merely our property and we consume it for ourselves alone…I think, therefore, that true and effective initiatives to prevent the waste and destruction of Creation can be implemented and developed, understood and lived, only where Creation is considered as beginning with God.”
-Pope Benedict XVI, August 2008"
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old May 13, '09, 8:40 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Good stewardship of the earth—yes. But what does it mean? Is it more moral to use horses than cars for transportation? Is it more moral to live in a high population density area such as Manhattan with public transportation than it is to live in a rural area that requires driving long distances? Is living in Kansas less moral than living in NYC? Are windmills for power generation more moral than gas or coal fired plants?

Was the Neolithic agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago when we switched from hunting and gathering to settled farming—was that bad stewardship? Is farming one acre more moral farming 500 acres? Is keeping 10 cows better than owning a cattle ranch?

Somewhere I saw two identical photos of a particular rural landscape taken about 100 years apart. The more recent one showed more trees, because more trees were planted—we didn’t do replanting 100 years ago.

And what is meant by human beings “destroying God’s creation?” Did the industrial revolution destroy God’s creation, but meteor strikes and volcano eruptions and hurricanes and tidal waves don’t? Do superhighways destroy God’s creation but dirt roads don’t? Does building a water wheel not destroy God’s creation, but building Hoover Dam does?

It used to be that buffalo were a protected species. Because they were protected, nobody had an interest in them or an incentive to keep them. Their population dwindled. Now they are no longer a protected species—we breed them and have buffalo ranching and serve buffalo steaks at Ted’s Steakhouse—and now they are a thriving species because there is an incentive to take care of them.

Is it required to protect baby seals and turtle eggs but not baby humans? After all, our entire national product, every bit of our Gross National Product—is produced by human beings providing goods and services. Human beings are a renewable and productive asset, perhaps the only part of God’s creation which is both productive and renewable.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old May 13, '09, 9:19 pm
cathybramble's Avatar
cathybramble cathybramble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post
Good stewardship of the earth—yes. But what does it mean? Is it more moral to use horses than cars for transportation? Is it more moral to live in a high population density area such as Manhattan with public transportation than it is to live in a rural area that requires driving long distances? Is living in Kansas less moral than living in NYC? Are windmills for power generation more moral than gas or coal fired plants?

Was the Neolithic agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago when we switched from hunting and gathering to settled farming—was that bad stewardship? Is farming one acre more moral farming 500 acres? Is keeping 10 cows better than owning a cattle ranch?

Somewhere I saw two identical photos of a particular rural landscape taken about 100 years apart. The more recent one showed more trees, because more trees were planted—we didn’t do replanting 100 years ago.

And what is meant by human beings “destroying God’s creation?” Did the industrial revolution destroy God’s creation, but meteor strikes and volcano eruptions and hurricanes and tidal waves don’t? Do superhighways destroy God’s creation but dirt roads don’t? Does building a water wheel not destroy God’s creation, but building Hoover Dam does?

It used to be that buffalo were a protected species. Because they were protected, nobody had an interest in them or an incentive to keep them. Their population dwindled. Now they are no longer a protected species—we breed them and have buffalo ranching and serve buffalo steaks at Ted’s Steakhouse—and now they are a thriving species because there is an incentive to take care of them.

Is it required to protect baby seals and turtle eggs but not baby humans? After all, our entire national product, every bit of our Gross National Product—is produced by human beings providing goods and services. Human beings are a renewable and productive asset, perhaps the only part of God’s creation which is both productive and renewable.
are you saying you don't know what good stewardship vs. environmental destruction is? maybe you should spend some time researching this. as far as i know there is no "one" answer to any of those questions you ask.

i'm also wondering how it is that buffalo came to be protected if no one was interested in them. obviously someone was interested in them enough to protect them. of course, failing to monitor their numbers and keep them healthy in the wild was not the best stewardship, but it's interesting how you bring in raising them for slaughter as a solution, rather than admitting that we didn't take proper care of them while they were wild. are we so selfish that we have to profit from them in order to care about them? that's pretty sad.

and i have no idea why you pose a dichotomy between protecting sea turtles and humans. if we protect the turtles, will there be more abortions? if we extinct another species, will abortion stop? the problem isn't about what to protect, but to deal with the destructiveness that necessitates their protection. humankind was directed by God to protect them both. we need to do it as best we can, and if we don't, we are disobeying God -- it's really very simple.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old May 13, '09, 9:39 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Species go extinct all the time. I don't think God directed us to protect every species. My point about the buffalo is that as long as they were a free ranging 'protected' species, what reason was there to have an interest in them? How many cows would there be if we had no interest in dairy farming or ranching?

Environmental 'destruction' occurs naturally as well. Obviously the environment changes constantly, and I wouldn't want to try to preserve it in a sort of static condition. Nature itself wouldn't allow that. I'm glad we didn't preserve the dinosaurs, but of course we weren't around then to protect them in any case.

And if someday we decide to colonize the moon or other planets, we may have to terraform them, which entail 'environmental destruction' of their existing environment. But that might be a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old May 13, '09, 9:46 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Here's John Stossel on how to protect endangered species: "Let's eat them." You can see his analysis in the video.

Or the same video here.

Last edited by JimG; May 13, '09 at 10:05 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old May 13, '09, 9:57 pm
maggiemay2u maggiemay2u is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 19, 2008
Posts: 3,252
Religion: RC
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

There as many scientific voices calling it one way as there are calling it the other way.

I ain't no scientist. I'm just a marginally intelligent being who recognizes massive climate change on this puny planet as cyclical. We are unearthing skeletal remains of prehistoric marine life embedded in mountaintops...that tells me sumpin' is afoot greater than flatulent cows.

IMHO, we are all called to use God's earth in a respectful way, but to not put it above the last and most god-like of all His creations.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old May 13, '09, 10:06 pm
cathybramble's Avatar
cathybramble cathybramble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post
Species go extinct all the time. I don't think God directed us to protect every species. My point about the buffalo is that as long as they were a free ranging 'protected' species, what reason was there to have an interest in them? How many cows would there be if we had no interest in dairy farming or ranching?

Environmental 'destruction' occurs naturally as well. Obviously the environment changes constantly, and I wouldn't want to try to preserve it in a sort of static condition. Nature itself wouldn't allow that. I'm glad we didn't preserve the dinosaurs, but of course we weren't around then to protect them in any case.

And if someday we decide to colonize the moon or other planets, we may have to terraform them, which entail 'environmental destruction' of their existing environment. But that might be a good thing.
God called all of His creation "good" ... who are we to pick and choose which ones are worthy of our protection? i think that's a little arrogant.

i think you still don't get what it means to be a good "steward" of something. what nature and the weather and meteorites and volcanoes do... all beyond our control. dumping toxic waste from our over-consuming society into rivers and streams and killing millions of fish... very much within our control. so it is wrong for us to do it, and hence a moral issue.

this isn't about what we have to destroy if we start colonizing the moon or whatever (if we take care of the earth, maybe we can just live here instead anyway)... it's about taking care of what we have because God created it and put us in charge of its well-being. not some of it. not the things we can profit from, or what we're "interested" in or what seems "valuable" to us at the time... all of it. to ignore that duty is disobedience to God. period.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old May 13, '09, 10:11 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

I seem to recall that God gave us the animals and plants to eat.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old May 13, '09, 10:44 pm
cathybramble's Avatar
cathybramble cathybramble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post
I seem to recall that God gave us the animals and plants to eat.
he gave us permission to eat animals but nowhere said it was okay to make them suffer unnecessarily or to extinct them through excessive consumption. the catechism bears this out. in most places in the western world, we actually don't need to eat meat at all. there is no directive from God that we must eat animals, they were originally created as our helpmates and companions. having permission to eat them is not carte blanche to abuse them and destroy the environment with factory farms... we are never excused from being stewards of the earth.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old May 14, '09, 5:59 am
mapleoak mapleoak is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2006
Posts: 2,123
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender View Post
Since 4elise has said she won't respond any more I'll address this comment to everyone else on this thread. The discussion here should not descend into yet another debate attempting to prove or disprove the theory of AGW. The question raised by this thread is not about whether the theory is true but about whether it is somehow a moral issue.
In order to claim that this theory is a moral issue (I am assuming use of the term moral issue in this thread means that not doing something to stop global warming is immoral), it needs to be satisfactorily illustrated that an earth with a changing climate is bad and harms poor people. That is a rather hefty postulate to support. If the climate gets warmer and causes poor people to die, what is to say that if the climate gets cooler, poor people will not also likely die as well? For that matter, is there reason to believe that if the climate were to remain stationary, that it will preserve the lives of the poor?
Would it then be moral to blindly perform actions in an attempt to influence the climate one way or the other, especially if while doing so ignoring consideration of those actions which simultaneously affect the poor in more direct, real, and concrete ways? For example taxing fuel usage or some such in a nebulous and inconclusive attempt to cool the earth in order to save the lives of poor people, while at same time such an action has a very real an detrimental effect on the livelihoods of the poor who can no longer afford transportation.
__________________
In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old May 14, '09, 6:48 am
cathybramble's Avatar
cathybramble cathybramble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 386
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleoak View Post
In order to claim that this theory is a moral issue (I am assuming use of the term moral issue in this thread means that not doing something to stop global warming is immoral), it needs to be satisfactorily illustrated that an earth with a changing climate is bad and harms poor people. That is a rather hefty postulate to support. If the climate gets warmer and causes poor people to die, what is to say that if the climate gets cooler, poor people will not also likely die as well? For that matter, is there reason to believe that if the climate were to remain stationary, that it will preserve the lives of the poor?
Would it then be moral to blindly perform actions in an attempt to influence the climate one way or the other, especially if while doing so ignoring consideration of those actions which simultaneously affect the poor in more direct, real, and concrete ways? For example taxing fuel usage or some such in a nebulous and inconclusive attempt to cool the earth in order to save the lives of poor people, while at same time such an action has a very real an detrimental effect on the livelihoods of the poor who can no longer afford transportation.
failing to be good stewards of God's creation (including its inhabitants) is a moral issue whether we cause global warming or not. if our destruction of the environment harms other people, we are in an even worse moral position.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old May 14, '09, 7:24 am
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Climate Change - Serious Moral Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by cathybramble View Post
failing to be good stewards of God's creation (including its inhabitants) is a moral issue whether we cause global warming or not. if our destruction of the environment harms other people, we are in an even worse moral position.
I guess it all comes down to what constitutes "destruction of the environment," and that has to be decided on a case by case basis, as a matter of prudential judgement.

Discharging sewage into a clean river is pretty destructive of the environment.
Building a subdivision of homes destroys the existing environment but provides homes for people. Sounds like a good tradeoff.

Building just one home in a rural area surrounded by acres of natural land is less destructive of the environment but less efficient use of resources.

Banning DDT because of the harm it would do to certain species helped preserve those species, but resulted in a re-outbreak of malaria in humans, because we were no longer spraying the mosquito populations with DDT.

Large scale attempts at global climate change seem doomed to fail as long as most other countries wish to continue the process of economic development, as they do. Who are we to tell China, or Vietnam or any other country that they are forbidden to use coal and oil to continue their economic development?

Hardly any instance of human activity, either to protect the environment, or to use or destroy the environment, is without unforseen consequences.

The "environment" changes with time, and in most cases humans have minimal control over it. Actually, humans are part of the environment. So let's just carefully consider the possible consequences of our actions, whether we consider them to be pro-environment or not.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8458Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3738Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3321Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3110For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:46 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.