Hi everyone, I was just wondering what the difference is between caring for the environment and going too far. For example, should Catholics be concerned about using nonrenewable resources, even if global warming is false?
Bit confused here. What are you saying? Global warming is false? The overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community says that man made global warming is a problem. I hope we are not going to start debating this.
Yes, as a Catholic you should be concerned with your use of both renewable and non renewable resources.
god gave us dominion over the world and told us to master it. A proper master gains service but also cares for his servant.
This interview with Cardinal George Pell might be helpful:
Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness
Cardinal George Pell has absolutely **no **scientific credentials whatsoever. Why on earth he would want to express his personel sceptisim publicly leaves me gobbsmacked. Arrogance at it’s worst.
Another good resource to get some balance is the documentary, Doomsday Called Off.
It features several scientists who reject global warming theories, including Dr. Sallie Baliunas, a Harvard University astrophysicist.
Catholic social teaching incudes an exhortation for us to be stewards of the environment. So yes…we should pursue any and all initiatives and strategies that might succeed in saving the Planet. I believe global warming is real. We *must try *to save the environment. :grouphug:
Um…then why are you debating it?
I respectfully disagree.
Keep in mind that there are those, particularly in politics, who would use scare tactics of “global warming”, trotting out all sorts of “scientific evidence”, in order to advance their political position and power.
Buying into “any and all” stratagies that “might” succeed is simplistic and foolish. Low-flush toilets are a prime example. If one has to flush them twice (or more) to…um…do the job, what savings have you accomplished?
Ted Danson, that intellectual giant, claimed that the oceans would be dead (or such similar nonsense) in 10 years. It’s been over ten years since he claimed that and they’re still thriving.
Al Gore has claimed that it’s too late to save the planet, yet insists that we must make radical changes NOW! If it’s too late to save the planet, does that make any sense at all?
I’m not saying that there isn’t any contribution on our part as humans to changes in the climate, only that they may be insignificant…and, as China emerges from the dark ages into what was our (in the USA)…let’s say less-than-environmentally-friendly Industrial age, they’ll dwarf any of our well-intentioned efforts to clean the air with their industrial pollution.
So what’s the answer? Common sense. Do the things that are proven to help; recycle, don’t be wasteful, don’t litter, take advantage of community hazardous waste disposal (paint,etc), any number of things that don’t fall into the “the sky is falling” panic mode.
Thanks, that makes sense. That also reminds me that we should probably replace our ancient toilets; you have to flush them at least twice almost every time…
Fortunately, we live right across the border from Windsor, where they still sell “regular” toilets. Next house that I have built, I’ll make a run across the border.
Global Warming is not real. It is a cyclical weather pattern. The temperatures have dropped in the last ten years. Use all the renewable resources or non-renewable resources as you wish. Do not feel guilty. 25 Years ago the “scientists” were talking about global cooling and the shortening of the growing season and questioning how are we going to feed all the people. Hooey, all hooey.
??? What kind of broad conspiracy theory is this??? All of the major oil companies admitt themselves that the massive burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. Why on earth would it help them to admit this?
Low flush toilets have nothing to do with global warming. They are to save water. Mine works fine.
You are always going to find somebody who makes outlandish statements. Using those (or a few dissenters) as a basis for denying basically the entire scientific communties findings is just silly.
It’s not about “saving the planet” the planet will exist just fine. It’s about making the most of it for those of us who will be living on earth in the future.
Yes, you are right. China energy demand is growing. But what are you saying “don’t do anything”?
I don’t see anybody in panic mode. We have been studying this for a number of years. Now it’s time for action. This can be achieved in a number of ways. Just think how well it went when we eliminated CFCs to fix the ozone layer. This is a bigger problem - but if we work together we can get it licked.
You might want to do some reading and educate yourself.
Just the fact that you put “scientists” in inverted commas says quiet a lot about your attitude.
So anyway Einstein - when we finish using all of the non-renewable resources what do you propose we do then?
But he is a Catholic Cardinal, this is a Catholic forum therefore a lot of people here are interested in what he thinks. I would bet that the Cardinal has read a lot more on the subject than most of us. Do you think that only doctors should have public opinions about health care or only lawyers should have public opinions about laws? If not then why can’t non scientist have public opinions on scientific things? By the way, what are your scientific credentials? If you have none the by your thinking you should remain silent about the subject.
Your reply strikes me as rather arrogant.
In what way is it arrogant to defer to experts? I chose to listen to the broad scientific body - the UN Panel on climate change for example. I wouldn’t listen to them for advice on spiritual matters. Then I might go to Cardinal Pell.
So prey tell. What is your plan for when the non-renewable resources are exhausted then?
thankfully the people that matter (in general) are convinced that global warming is a problem.
What are these freedoms that you feel have been restricted. Is it your birth right to burn fossile fuel at a higher rate per capita than the rest of the world.
RE: China first: It’s a bit rich for the developed nations to spend the last 150 years exploiting the environment, creating wealth in the process, to then turn around and deny relatively poor countries the chance at development. That’s why those of us from richer countries need to set an example. And lets face it. America is currently the worst offender (per capita)