Pope To Decree Addressing Climate Change

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1391982' date='Sep 23 2007, 11:23 PM']sometimes i think people tend to get preprogramed to take in fact responses. if you look at the data, solar variation increased a few hundred years ago. but the temp increase that occured recently is much more than the amount variation has increased. the amount of increase sort of seems not porportional to the roughly level solar variational effects.
plus, the scientists in the GW link of solar cyles say temp models reflective with solar cycles don't exist.
plus there are so many people who disagree with the great GW wwindle for the reasons i said. they say the solar variation doesnt' account for the warming that has occured.

it seems the most objective stance is that of uncertainty, but concern. most likely what the pope's stance will be.[/quote]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Why does it not surprise me that you fail to show any references to what you claim?

Look at the sun spots... look at who is saying what and how they make their money. Who are these "so many people"?

Take a few classes on critical thinking and logic and I think you might go further when trying to debate.

Get educated, there are many many more scientist that agree with me than those that disagree with me. Those that do disagree, many of them get grants to study... guess what?... Global Warming... hmmm... could that be bias? Hmmm... [i]I wonder.[/i]

Does the fact that the 30 volcano eruptions a year put more cfc's, CO2, etc... in the air than we can do in thousands of years make a difference? Hmmmm.... I wonder.

Does the fact that there was once an ice age before man walked the earth show that the earths temp naturally variates? hmmmm... I wonder.

Does the fact that the sun is pushing more heat into the solar system make a difference in the temp on earth? hmmmm... I wonder.

No, I don't wonder... I know.


[img]http://www.space.com/images/h_sun_mintomax_001215_03.jpg[/img]

In 1996, near the last solar minimum, the Sun is nearly featureless. By 1999, approaching maximum, it is dotted by sunspots and fiery hot gas trapped in magnetic loops.

[img]http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif[/img]

Long-term: A previous study showed that changes in the Sun's output appear to be related to temperatures on Earth, based on studies of tree rings, sunspots and other data. [url="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun_weather_010828-1.html"]LEARN MORE[/url]

[goldenchild17]

Now, I don't know whether or not there is any such thing as global warming going on now or not. I don't have the scientific background to know all about that kind of stuff, but (and maybe it's because I'm a hippie at heart ) but I don't think it really matters if there is global warming or not. We shouldn't need a natural disaster to kick ourselves into gear and realize that many of the things we do aren't helping the world we live in. Even less should protection of the earth be used as a political agenda of one side against another.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Era Might

[Justin86]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1391860' date='Sep 24 2007, 09:44 AM']

As a faithful Catholic who is very involved in environmental issues, I can tell you personally it is anything but a matter of going with what's warm and fuzzy or politically correct. In such a position, I am more often attacked by both sides than applauded by either. For the Catholics, I'm accused of embracing warm and fuzzy, PC, new age stuff because I think it's important to care for the environment. For the environmentalists, I'm chastised because I don't believe birth control is ethical and I think children are a gift from God and the marital embrace is sacred.

What I think has been sorely missing from society today is a coherent, Catholic environmental ethic that is able to prove itself through logic and natural law just as most other Catholic teachings do. This is just what Benedict XVI has been creating in his past few statements on the environment, building on what JPII has already said.

How can one say that the Church addressing issues of wide concern for all of society is a sign of weakness? What else is the Church meant to do - address only issues that were a concern hundreds of years ago? If that was the case, then the Church should not be so involved in the pro-life movement, as abortion was still illegal in most countries 100 years ago. Birth control as we know it did not even exist 100 years ago. As technology develops and societal norms change, it is the responsibility of the Church to guide the faithful in complex ethical dilemmas. I would say environmental issues are some of the most complex issues facing society today. As someone with a bachelor's in environmental science and a masters in environmental ethics from a pontifical university, I still find these issues very hard to grasp. How is it better that the Church provide no guidance on this?[/quote]
The Pope can't infallibly comment on matters of scientific debate. So whether global warming is or is not happening, and if it is whether it is man made or naturally occurring, whether there's anything we can do to stop it and if there is, what exactly that should be can not be taught by the Pope.

I'm sorry but the guidance you seek is not a matter of Divine Revelation that the Holy Father can simply decree for you. It's a matter of scientific debate and is for that reason left up to scientists.

Expect some catch phrase like "Christians are called to take care of the earth" to basically be repeated over and over again in different ways. I'm not expecting anything of substance.

P.S

The Pope delegates almost all political authority in the Vatican to various Cardinals. While I suppose I could be convinced that Benedict actually does believe the whole global warming hoopla I could just as easily see a carbon-free Vatican building forests in Hungary as the dream of some weird Cardinal somewhere.

Say, what exactly does Mahoney do for the Vatican?

Edited September 24, 2007 by Justin86

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'll believe it when I see it. I have very little trust in news articles that make claims about what the Pope is supposedly going to say about something. Decades ago the global news media proclaimed that the Pope was planning to allow contraception and many Catholics (including clergy) went along with this nonsense.
I doubt Pope Benedict would canonize the global warming agenda, I'm sure whatever he says will be a bit more involved than that. Chances are he is just going to reaffirm Catholic teaching and maybe try to shed some light on a few particulars. But anyway, I don't like to speculate too much about what the Pope might say; we'll just have to see. The media rarely gets it right even after the Pope has actually said something clearly and definitively.

It is well known that the Vatican is a very environmental friendly sovereign state. Certainly the Church values authentic stewardship of the Earth and all that jazz.

[thessalonian]

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT! The question is what is causing it. I don't see anything in the pope's statements to date that says we are causing it. If I have missed something please post it. We are to be stewards of the earth and there is a ton of pollution out there. I am no enviromentalist wacko but so far I have not seen anything wrong with what the vatican is proposing. As the third world becomes more modern pollution will only increase and we need to speak about it. I am glad teh Vatican plans to speak on it and expect the Holy Spirit to guide their words. Haven't read a bad Encyclical yet.

[thessalonian]

Justin,

The issues regarding the enviroment are not just science and the Church does have a role to play in the discussion. Historically they have clearly not spoken enough on the matter in my view. As I said above, I have not seen a bad encyclical yet in matters they have spoken substantially about so I expect what the Pope will say will be of substance, though I agree he will nto speak of the cause of global warming. By the way, most encyclicals and statements don't contain infallible statements and I don't expect one in this either.

Edited September 24, 2007 by thessalonian

[morostheos]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1392193' date='Sep 24 2007, 09:58 AM']The Pope can't infallibly comment on matters of scientific debate. So whether global warming is or is not happening, and if it is whether it is man made or naturally occurring, whether there's anything we can do to stop it and if there is, what exactly that should be can not be taught by the Pope.

I'm sorry but the guidance you seek is not a matter of Divine Revelation that the Holy Father can simply decree for you. It's a matter of scientific debate and is for that reason left up to scientists.

Expect some catch phrase like "Christians are called to take care of the earth" to basically be repeated over and over again in different ways. I'm not expecting anything of substance.[/quote]

Um, I never said that the pope should or would say anything regarding matters of scientific debate. I said he should guide the faithful in a Catholic environmental ethic. There is a huge difference between the two. I am a scientist, and I'm not looking for the pope to start teaching me science, it's obviously not his field of expertise. In the same way, I don't look to any of the Catholics on this site to try and teach me science either, they don't know what they're talking about. I simply don't have time to address the errors in their many statements since I know they won't listen to what I have to say anyway.

Edited September 24, 2007 by morostheos

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999[/quote][quote]It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.[/quote]
^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.

i think that solar activity is high means that if it goes down, then the exacerbation that is currently occurring will not be important at all. it might be relatively unimportant right now.
there's more to be said but not right now.


here are some correlations.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png[/url]


it's about exacerbation. not about general trends. the epa link cited earlier addresses that too. and it verifies that the recent increases are "very likely" from greenhouse gas.

Edited September 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1392257' date='Sep 24 2007, 11:25 AM']Um, I never said that the pope should or would say anything regarding matters of scientific debate. I said he should guide the faithful in a Catholic environmental ethic. There is a huge difference between the two. I am a scientist, and I'm not looking for the pope to start teaching me science, it's obviously not his field of expertise. In the same way, I don't look to any of the Catholics on this site to try and teach me science either, they don't know what they're talking about. I simply don't have time to address the errors in their many statements since I know they won't listen to what I have to say anyway.[/quote]As has been repeatedly discussed on this phorum, there are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue regarding whether or not 'global warming' is occuring because of man-made causes. It is also quite obvious the issue has become a political tool being used to forward other agendas with little regard to scientific fact, scientific theory, and proper perspective for the truth.
The danger in the Pope speaking about it at all, is that some will use whatever he says to forward their agenda, regardless of scientific reality. Given the doubts and hysteria about Global Warming, what kind of 'moral imperative' do you think the Pope can come up with that isn't burdened with politics? What's the point or need for the Pope to address 'Global Warming' given the hysterics surrounding it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ironmonk would have us believe there are no reputable scientists on the GW side. you are part of the prob anamoly for saying that, apparently. also, you lack logic, and need to go back to elementary schoo. oh wait, that's just ironmonk being childish.


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#_noe-38"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_o...change#_note-38[/url]
i would read the section on solar variation at the end of the article. i'd also read the section on the likely hood of GH gasses causing probs, at the very beginning of the article.

there's more to post but not right now.

Edited September 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

when variance goes down, will green gases stay up? will that cause temps to stay up even if variance goes down? would the caps be melting or other detrimental effects occur without the extra exacerbation from the greenhouse gases? (the exacerbation that's undisputable)

maybe it's better to post questions, as my point is we simply cannot know.

[thessalonian]

The problem is we cannot know and yet we are proposing laws based on what we cannot know.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1392281' date='Sep 24 2007, 05:12 PM']The danger in the Pope speaking about it at all, is that some will use whatever he says to forward their agenda, regardless of scientific reality. Given the doubts and hysteria about Global Warming, what kind of 'moral imperative' do you think the Pope can come up with that isn't burdened with politics? What's the point or need for the Pope to address 'Global Warming' given the hysterics surrounding it?[/quote]

I don't think that the pope would be presenting any new teachings per say, but calling for a greater emphasis on care for creation in general. As it is now, there is no one main document to look to regarding environmental ethics and how Catholic social teaching comes into play within them - instead one must look through hundreds of addresses made by the popes to individual groups. Environmental ethics draw heavily on the principles of the common good, subsidiarity, the universal destination of goods in addition to just the general responsibility of man to care for creation. Given the hysterics around it, many Catholics could become convinced that population control or other such things are the only answer to such problems if other solutions are not presented in a coherent manner. One can say all they want that global warming is just a bunch of hysterics, but what if it isn't? What could we do to address the things we know are problems within society that may or may not have an effect on the climate? Regardless of whether or not global warming is happening, our responsibility as Catholics to take care of the earth does not change.

[kafka]

I dont know all the theories about global warming, but I have seen some Nova specials on PBS concerning it. I am not into politics. I've never voted. But its clear to me that global warming and other environmental issues are symptoms of a sinful world. An especially sinful seclular society in our times accross the globe. A disrespect for God's precious Creation. A disrespect for the sacredness of life in general, from a simple tree and even more especially an unborn child. So even though these political groups and scientists are misguided and maybe insincere, in my humble opinion there is some truth to what they are reporting.

Any natural scientist or person who is close to the natural world will tell you that there is a certain stress on the planet at this time in history. This is caused not only by the sins of men, but also by the imprudence and lack of wisdom, and lack of respect and lack of worship of God the author of all life.

[Norseman82]

Well, one positive thing about cutting back on oil consumption: less money going to Hugo Chavez and OPEC.