Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

[Ender]

Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

I find it disturbing that this question is even asked as it assumes that there is some Catholic position with which one could disagree. There isn't and it is a bit disconcerting that there should be any uncertainty on this point. The Church has no doctrinal position on Global Warming, or, more specifically, the Church does not oblige us to believe that the scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is valid.

I'm confident that future Catholics will be as unconcerned that the Church took no position on global warming as we are that she didn't oblige earlier generations to believe in phlogiston.

Ender

[Ridgerunner]

It is undeniable that scientists do not agree on whether the earth is warming or, if so, what's causing it.

It is undeniable to me, and to all who live around here, that the climate has been cooling significantly for the last three years; this year most of all. Call that "weather" if you want, but it's much cooler than normal.

It is undeniable that, if "cap and trade" is passed, the cost of energy will go up. The only question is by how much.

It is undeniable that neither China nor India have any intention of reducing CO2 emissions.

It is undeniable that China surpasses the U.S. right now in emissions, and adds a new coal-fired plant every ten days.

Now, when we realize that "global warming" is not a certainty, and that "cap and trade" will do nothing to change it, but that the cost of heating a poor person's house in Maine (and everywhere else in the U.S.) will go up, we have to think through just what kind of "social justice" we're engaging in when we support things like "cap and trade".

[Jean_1958]

Holy See on Protecting Global Climate
"Educate in Ecological Responsibility"

NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2008 - Here is the message Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered today before the Second Committee of the 63rd session of the U.N. General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.

* * *

Mr Chairman,

My delegation is pleased to join this debate on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, and wishes to express at the very outset its appreciation for the effective approach to this particular item of the General Assembly.

It is often said that we have to defend the environment. The term “defense” could mislead us to see a conflict between the environment and the human being. In this forum, we speak of “protection” or “safeguarding”. Indeed, in this case, protection encompasses more than defense. It implies a positive vision of the human being, meaning that the person is considered not a nuisance or a threat to the environment, but as its steward. In this sense, not only is there no opposition between the human being and the environment, but there is an established and inseparable alliance, in which the environment essentially conditions the human being’s existence and development, while the latter perfects and ennobles the environment by his creative activity.

The use of appropriate language is important when we speak of protecting the environment and climate change, so vital for the whole of humanity today.

Ever since international law began to embrace global commons and shared ecosystems, new concepts have taken shape with a view to rethinking the legal basis of the appropriation, use, safeguard, protection and equitable sharing of natural resources as well as ecosystems. Notwithstanding some divergence of opinion regarding their meaning and normative status, the principles of “common heritage of mankind”, “state responsibility”, “common but differentiated responsibilities”, “inter-generational and intra-generational equity”, have provided valuable perspectives and guidance for addressing the interrelations of environment, economic development and ultimately human rights.

In the same vein, the principle of “responsibility to protect”, though it may not have been able to generate precise juridical norms in itself, has been invoked by some as an essential aspect of the exercise of sovereignty at the national and international levels.

Applying this principle to environmental issues and associating it with the protection of the global climate, actually gives the international community an opportunity to reflect on different aspects that can help promote an authentic human development.

The responsibility to protect the climate requires us to further deepen the interactions between food security and climate change, focusing on the centrality of the human person, in particular on the most vulnerable populations, often located in rural areas of developing countries. The strategies to confront the challenges of food security and climate change, through synergic actions of adaptation and mitigation, must take into account the centrality of these populations, respecting their culture and traditional customs.

Secondly, the responsibility to protect the climate should be based on the alliance between the principles of subsidiarity and global solidarity. In a world so interconnected as today, we are witnessing the rapid expansion of a series of challenges in many areas of human life, from food crisis to financial turmoil. Such crises have revealed the limited national resources and capacities to deal with them adequately, and the increasing need for collective action by the international community. The current negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are a good example of how responsibility to protect, subsidiarity and global solidarity are strongly intertwined with each other, a fact that we ought to take into account as we consider the protection of the global climate for present and future generations.

Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that the environmental question cannot be considered separately from other issues, like energy and economy, peace and justice, national interests and international solidarity. It is not difficult to perceive how issues of environmental protection, models of development, social equity and shared responsibility to care for the environment are inextricably linked.

Today’s society cannot respond adequately to the duty connected with the responsibility to protect the environment if it does not seriously review its lifestyle, its patterns of consumption and production. There is, therefore, an urgent need to educate in ecological responsibility, based on the fact that many ethical values, fundamental for developing a peaceful society, have a direct relationship to the environmental question. Conversely, the interdependence of the many challenges that the world faces today confirms the need for coordinated solutions based on a coherent moral vision of the world.

Such education cannot simply rest on political or ideological reasons, nor its purpose aim at the rejection of the modern world. It entails a genuine conversion and change in patterns of thinking and behavior and should be based on the value and dignity of the human person.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ender]

Originally Posted by Jean_1958

NEW YORK, OCT. 28, 2008 - Here is the message Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, delivered today before the Second Committee of the 63rd session of the U.N. General Assembly on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.

As I said on a different thread where this message was posted, the opinion it expresses on global warming carries no moral weight. We are completely free to accept or reject it but this is precisely the kind of statement-inference that many within the Church make that I find offensive. What is implied is that, because someone with authority within the Church expresses an opinion on a prudential matter, it somehow imposes a moral obligation on Catholics to accept it. This implication is false and the people - bishops included - who make such declarations know it.

The obligation to apply prudential judgment to the solution of social problems lies with those specifically charged with that responsibility and in the realm of science that most assuredly is not a Vatican representative to the UN, or indeed the Pope himself. There is no moral ambiguity to the scientific question of the validity of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory is either correct or incorrect and that is a purely scientific question with no moral component whatsoever.

Ender

[Maso]

Originally Posted by fish90

Is disagreeing about Global Warming the same as disagreeing about the Iraq War?

Well... if the total sum of BTU's of heat energy contained within the Earth's atmosphere now is higher than what was normal before the Industrial Revolution then that proves that there is such a thing as "Global Worming", but nobody can ever prove it.

Temperature is not a factor because it is a variable. Total atmospheric BTU level is very much a constant although we have no real way to measure it.

[verum peto]

Regardless of the controversy (which personally I see as a straw man) over Global Warming, we have a moral obligation of stewardship of the planet. We know that petroleum is poison, at every stage of its extraction and usage. Our economy and standard of living is based on consuming poison. Yet, we now have the clean technologies to move away from that. More than that, the newer technologies are renewable, unlimited, and freely available in most populated parts of the planet.

There is no excuse for dragging our feet on this. It is possible for the oil companies to profit in the short term. Even if the decision were to shut them down, this would be in the public benefit, and a huge boost to the economies and standard of living for all people.

[GratefulFred]

"Global Warming" is a very broad title.

Scientists have studied tree rings and tall columns of ice and conclude that our planet has had many cycles of warming and cooling of various lengths in various places on Earth.

The advance and retreat of glaciers have created wonderful tracts of land.

While we have measured annual rainfall for about 100 years in various locations, we also can see, in that 100 years, periods above and below average. I am not sure that anyone can honestly say major areas of the "globe" ARE in a period, longer than in the known past, with below average rain. As to temperatures - it does matter where the measurement is made. Change the location, change the reading.

So there is a NATURAL increase and decrease in "Warming" over long periods of time.

BUT, the industrial age has had its affect. AND we now have some 6 billion people, by far, the most ever. Yet, at the same time we have discovered great efficiencies in growing food and distributing it to far off places (albeit not everywhere needed) so that many more people today do live better because of the industrial age. The same with medicine, education, housing, clothing, etc.

Thus, there are pluses and minuses, but overall we - the developed and developing world - are better off than we were 200 years ago before the industrial revolution began.

Yet we are called to be good stewards of our resources. Conservation and recycling are relatively easy to do. Alternative "clean(er)" energy is much much harder. And it seems to be much much more expensive so it doesn't look like a good thing for the poor who need it most.

Theory is one thing. Reality is another. Economics is a third. Objective, reliable data is a fourth and is often suspect.

So, in my view, there can be honest disagreement. We all need to learn more before we support too strongly one position or another.

[verum peto]

I think that moral questions are relevant here, as they influence public policy.

I once worked for the largest wind turbine company in the world. According to the engineers I spoke with there, there is plenty of wind in the US to power all of our utilities, and it is cost competitive with oil. I have no idea if this is true, but that is the claim made.

Consider that we subsidize the airline industry through homeland security, the FAA, airports, government contracts to aircraft builders. We subsidize the automotive and oil industry through building and maintaining highways, the NTHSA, and our military. Even before the current wars, the US spent $7 in defense spending in the ME per barrel of oil exported from the ME. So while the price is low at the pump, it is actually about 20% higher in defense spending. I have no idea what the current wars over oil have done to that number, perhaps the actual cost now has tripled or quadrupled for us in money, and the cost of the blood and lives is even higher.

Without getting too political, the point I am trying to make is that, sure... we can disagree on the issue of global warming, but there is a larger moral issue which is simply good stewardship, which inheres regardless of global warming or not global warming.

When the actual cost of producing oil is calculated, then the alternatives are cheaper are at least competitive. When you add in the cost of the environmental damage, the the alternatives are a fraction of the cost of oil.

[Monte RCMS]

There are many different cyclical phenomena that impact the Earth and its climate. They range from the 11 year solar sun spot cycle to the cosmic ray cycle. We have no idea what causes any of them.

We do know that these cycles existed before man arrived and we know that man has no impact on them and we know that there is a correlation between them and the earth's "temperature" and climate change.

There is a great deal about these and other natural phenomena that we just do not understand.

Making the whole issue much more complex is that we KNOW that some of the data is bad data ... www.surfacestations.org has details.

And we also now have "climategate" in which we learned that there has been a long term deliberate effort by some scientists to fabricate data to make their point about man-made global warming. If global warming was so evident and so obvious and so real, then why would they need to deliberately engage in fraud to try to make their point?

[Sir Knight]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv...mb-410x307.jpg

http://www.viewzone2.com/globalwarming.jpg

Wonder who was burning fossil fuel 1,000, 4,000 and 7,000 years ago to cause global warming back then?

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8...782d970b-800wi

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Sir Knight

http://www.viewzone2.com/globalwarming.jpg

Wonder who was burning fossil fuel 1,000, 4,000 and 7,000 years ago to cause global warming back then?

The medeval warming period shown on this graph was the one the Global Warmings alarrmists diligently tried to exclude from all their calculations. they refered to it as a "trick"

[Monte RCMS]

We also know that the IPCC computer models show a variety of forecasts for the year 2100. They show extremes of as much as six degrees higher than now, although their "most likely" scenario is about one degree more than now. [The variety of forecasts allows the "religious AGW" people to "pick their forecast" for whatever desired political outcome they happen to "believe" in.]

The "problem" is that if the 100 year forecast is 1º more than now, and if the data recording instruments [ www.surfacestations.org ] show reading of as much as 5º too high [because of badly placed instruments, new thermal retentive paint on the cabinet, reflective pavement creating an oven-like effect, etc.], then if the models are corrected for the bad data, it would appear that the correct future temperature would be a -4º ... cooler than now ... not a +1º warmer than now.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by verum peto

I once worked for the largest wind turbine company in the world. According to the engineers I spoke with there, there is plenty of wind in the US to power all of our utilities, and it is cost competitive with oil. I have no idea if this is true, but that is the claim made.

There is a nuclear power plant in Texas that generates 2.5 MW. In order for windmills to replace just that one plant they would have to cover an area the size of Rhode Island. This is because the "energy density" of nuclear plants is over 50 times greater than wind farms.

Without getting too political, the point I am trying to make is that, sure... we can disagree on the issue of global warming, but there is a larger moral issue which is simply good stewardship, which inheres regardless of global warming or not global warming.

The issue is not whether we should be good stewards but what should a good steward do? The debate is not between those who care and those who don't, it is between those who disagree on the probable outcome of the choices before us.

When the actual cost of producing oil is calculated, then the alternatives are cheaper are at least competitive. When you add in the cost of the environmental damage, the the alternatives are a fraction of the cost of oil.

This is a good example of the point I just made. I disagree with this assessment; I think it is completely wrong. There is no moral issue involved (which is why there is no "Church" position on the issue); it is a question of who's facts are correct.

Ender

[Monte RCMS]

Readers here should buy a copy of "A Primer on Renewable Energy" by Dr. Howard Hayden.

www.valeslake.com

http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm

and also subscribe to Dr. Hayden's newsletter:

www.energyadvocate.com [and also scroll down to the bottom of the page; some interesting things there.

And here is one of the freebie analyses that Dr. Hayden offers:

http://www.energyadvocate.com/big_trbn.htm

[Monte RCMS]

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Hungry-M...8364864&sr=1-5

http://www.booktv.org/search.aspx?Fo...power%20hungry

Robert Bryce's book, "Power Hungry".

Excellent, IMHO.