Lately I have been learning a lot on how to reduce my impact of the environment. THe way I see it is that this is the one planet we were given to live on by God alone so why mess it up and destroy it. I was wondering if the church itself had a postition on the gloabal climate change.
Recent popes have commented on climate change and human environmental impact, but didn’t officially teach causation. We have a duty to care for and not abuse the environment. However, we have watch out for the neo-paganism that is evident in much environmental talk. Such talk implies humanity is a parasite on the earth, and that no cost (even evil acts) is too great to keep the Eath in pristine condition.
I don’t exactly understand what you mean when you talk about neo paganism. I never heard of anything anit humanity in environmental talks or what not. I mean with our actions we are hurting the planet because we aren’t being careful enough. THe evidence is clear that global warming is really happening.
I haven’t heard many of the Neopagans that I know or with whom I interact regularly refer to humanity as a " parasite on the earth." The emphasis is more on the fact that humanity is not and cannot exist separate from what we call “Nature.” That means that actions we take have to be viewed within the context of the ecosystem as a whole–everything is inextricably intertwined. The goal is to keep the Earth in livable condition, ie able to support life (and, in our case, human life).
Now there are probably Neopagan groups out there who do espouse such a view (as well as non-Neopagans who do—maybe even some Christians), but I do not encounter them. There are extremists in any group.
Not sure what you mean by “evil acts” in this context.
Many of these environmental groups advocate ‘population control’. That is contrary to Catholic Teaching, as there are actualy FEWER people on Earth than God desires due to sins like contraception and abortion.
Children are gifts from God, each His own idividual creation. They are the result of our co-operation with God, not the independant result of human action. The Earth, by definition, cannot have more people on it that God intended.
Add to this, most of the environmental groups have an incorrect view of the value of human life relative to other species. If the saving of a single human life (or soul) necessitated the extermination of every Spotted Owl, or any other species, it would be easily worth it.
. I mean with our actions we are hurting the planet because we aren’t being careful enough. THe evidence is clear that global warming is really happening.
The evidence is clear that global warming is happening, the evidence is NOT clear that it is the result of human interaction.
For example, the Russian Academy of Science has documentented an increase in solar energy output over the last 12 years, and NASA has documented global warming on Mars too.
The Earth, by definition, cannot have more people on it that God intended.
Then He needs to come up with a radical design change unless He intended a great majority of them to live in abysmal conditions.
**The evidence is clear that global warming is happening, the evidence is NOT clear that it is the result of human interaction.
For example, the Russian Academy of Science has documentented an increase in solar energy output over the last 12 years, and NASA has documented global warming on Mars too.**
There was a report discussed on BBC World News last night about exhaustive studies that show that the sun, if it is having any effect at all, has been mitigating global warming over the last 40 years rather than causing it. This is not the case for what we can tell of the pre-industrial era, when the sun had a greater effect.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/video_and_audio/default.stm go down the page to Sci-Tech and listen to “no sun link to climate change.”
The issue of “global warming” is very complex and deserves detailed study.
There is another thread, which I will post a link to.
In the meanwhile, visit Amazon and purchase a copy of “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming”.
Go to this thread and read more.
In addition, go to the search function and type in global warming.
If you get serious about studying global warming, go to www.climatechangedebate.org and sign in to read the various posts.
This evidence is not exactly how Al Gore has stated it - the warming curves go up and down according to several noted UK scientists interviewed in a show for the BBC. (and they presented graphs etc showing that at times there is a lot of “warming” and at other times there is not.) Here’s a link where you can view that show:
Their bottom line - Mr Gore and his movie are full of baloney. How surprising. NOT!
Here is the link to a story on this:
Here is a quote from the story:
[quote=global warming not]Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
“We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five
years,” he said.A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.
We must remember Al Gore is about winning an election and the news is about entertainment and not necessarily reporting the facts.
This video didn’t mention a thing about the sun’s increased output MITIGATING global warming, but rather, it claimed to present a study showing that solar activity has been decreasing in the last 20 years.
This is contrary to what the Russian satelites have been saying for the last 12, so it would be interesting to read this persons report.
How so, there is currently more food per person right now than at any point in recorded history. More access to clean water too.
How are conditions worse now than in the Middle Ages, for example
the only big issue remaining is distrubution of the same.
In the clip I heard on the BBC World News Radio, the person presenting report said very plainly that if (and it was an if, as I said) the sun had had an effect on climate change since the 1940s, it was to decrease rather than increase global warming, as all the indicators went in the wrong direction for it to exacerbate global warming.
Please keep in mind, that movies are nothing more than plays on the emotions.
If you get a copy of the transcript, you will find there isn’t much meat to the “facts” that are stated.
If you watch the film WITHOUT SOUND, then there also isn’t much to it.
Try the experiment at home. Watch a movie … any movie … without sound. You can see the splices and the plain pure transparency of the make-believe that is taking place.
Similarly, get a transcript and read it carefully … and again, there just isn’t any meat.
Just as science is NEVER determined by consensus, so also, science is never depicted by movies.
Unhappily, to “do” science, you need to do a lot of reading, and comparing, and … field work … to determine what is “real” and what is “not real”.
Opinions do not count as science.
Computer simulations and modeling do not count as science, because you can make a sim to anything you want it to do.
Visit www.climatechangedebate.org and sign in and read the posts. Very interesting.
This is interesting: there appears to be scientific disagreement about what has happened in a single physical system in the last 20 years yet we are to believe that there is no reasonable scientific disagreement about what has been happening in the myriad of physical systems affecting the earth - and their interactions with one another - for the last several hundred thousand years. I remain unconvinced that the level of certainty is anything like the supporters of AGW maintain.
Google “oism ddp” and take a look at the program for the August 2007 conference in California. There will be lots of “dissident” scientists presenting.
There are certainly strong elements of animistic pantheism in modern green activists. Look closely at any group that claims the value “biocentric ecology” and you will see that in careful PR fashion, they actually believe that humans are no more special than pandas, whales, tigers and bears. According to this value system, no one kind of life form is in any way more valuable than another.
The philosopher and author Alston Chase discusses this radical change in world view extensively in his book “In a Dark Wood”. (a book describing how the change from ‘Conservation Movement’ to ‘Ecological Movement’ took place.)
You can always tell what I’m reading right now, because I’m always talking about it!
okay so are you saying that it’s paganism if I try to conserve water and energy and recycle. If i want to make this earth cleaner and buy an environmentally safe car would that be considered neo paganism because there is a lot of pollution in the air. I mean there is a lot going on in our world like this besides global warming itself.
No. He’s saying it’s paganism if you attack others for not believing as you do.
There are folks who believe in “Gaia”, the notion that the Planet Earth is alive. Basically they support environmentalism, not because it is nice to have clean air, but because they worship Gaia.
I mean the idolatrous worship of Mother Earth or Gaia as others mentioned. Most of us are not* formally* worshipping, but through acts that look little different than superstition. If one is buying lower-emission cars and recycle (which incidently, I’ve seen valid arguments that recycling is worse for the environment.) out of a duty to conserve, that’s all well and good. If one is doing them ritualistically as if such acts are a form of divine appeasement, then there is trouble. If I turn off the lights because it is needless waste, I’m ok. If I forget to turn off the lights or even flush the toilet and feel guilty, I’m in trouble because it is scrupulosity. And I fear this is where the whole environmental thing is headed. I hope I am wrong.