Pope To Decree Addressing Climate Change

[Socrates]

Like LD said, I'd wait until the Pope makes his actual address, and see what he actually says before jumping all over this.
And an address to the UN on the environment does not qualify as the official proclamation of Catholic dogma.

There's absolutely nothing wrong of course with saying that we have a responsibility to care for the earth, etc.
However, what exactly should be done in practical terms is still a matter of much debate. Hugely expensive big government programs which will have neglible actual effect on the climate, but have mostly "symbolic" importance, are not the answer.

From what I've seen I do think the global warming issue is being used by the Left as an opportunity to push for more power to globalist bureaucracies and more socialism.
And most hardcore environmentalists are fanatically pro-abortion/pro-contraception, and often openly state that human "overpopulation" is the root of all the earth's problems, and push for government-mandated population-control measures as the #1 most important environmental "solution."

The Vatican should not strain too hard to appease such people, who will care little about what the Pope says, so long as he continues to oppose abortion and contraception.
And I can easily see Papal declarations on the environment being twisted by the "seamless garment"-type liberals, who will try to present things like "global warming" as "life-issues" equivalent morally to abortion and euthanasia to further muddy political waters (as they already do with welfare, immigration, etc.).

[XIX]

It seems like a lot of Catholics have taken "We are called to be stewards of the earth," and morphed it into "Yeah we are called to be stewards of the earth, but..."

We are called to be stewards of the earth. Period. It really doesn't matter whether GW is actually a result of man-made pollution or whatever it is. It may affect the gravity of the situation, and I don't think it's as crucial as anything Al Gore would say. However, we should still keep pollution down, because I don't want to inhale that stuff if I can reasonably avoid it. We have a responsibility to take care of the earth, regardless of whether we have done a good job up to this point in time.

It is like salvation. Whether you conclude that 5% or 95% of all souls go to heaven, that doesn't affect our responsibility to take care of other souls. Same with taking care of the planet. Take care of the planet, and let the whole GW craze take care of itself. All of the debates over GW are, with all due respect, pointless. We know what we need to know: The Church tells us to take care of the planet. The Church implies that it is not as important as other moral issues (abortion, stem cells, gay marriage...yes, even gay marriage, human sexuality, Catholic theology, etc.) So we should also keep the environment in perspective.

But I highly doubt the Pope is going to issue an opinion on GW, either way.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1392627' date='Sep 24 2007, 10:28 PM']Like LD said, I'd wait until the Pope makes his actual address, and see what he actually says before jumping all over this.
And an address to the UN on the environment does not qualify as the official proclamation of Catholic dogma.

There's absolutely nothing wrong of course with saying that we have a responsibility to care for the earth, etc.
However, what exactly should be done in practical terms is still a matter of much debate. Hugely expensive big government programs which will have neglible actual effect on the climate, but have mostly "symbolic" importance, are not the answer.

From what I've seen I do think the global warming issue is being used by the Left as an opportunity to push for more power to globalist bureaucracies and more socialism.
And most hardcore environmentalists are fanatically pro-abortion/pro-contraception, and often openly state that human "overpopulation" is the root of all the earth's problems, and push for government-mandated population-control measures as the #1 most important environmental "solution."

The Vatican should not strain too hard to appease such people, who will care little about what the Pope says, so long as he continues to oppose abortion and contraception.
And I can easily see Papal declarations on the environment being twisted by the "seamless garment"-type liberals, who will try to present things like "global warming" as "life-issues" equivalent morally to abortion and euthanasia to further muddy political waters (as they already do with welfare, immigration, etc.).[/quote]You and LD are right. Wait to see and keep an open mind. Maybe the Pope will state that Nations should not sacrifice aid to the poor for wasted $$ on ill-considered boondoggles.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1392244' date='Sep 24 2007, 10:55 AM']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.[/quote]

Bro,
Global warming is nothing new... "global warming" as in what the media and Al Gore want us to believe is a hoax.

Our carbon output does nothing to warm the earth... it's impossible... we don't put out enough.

The only way to give any credit to the nonsense that Gore's crew says is to ignore the sun and every other source of carbon in the air.

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions if not billions of years. There is nothing we can do in everyday life to stop it or cause it.

I remember hearing about the coming ice age in the 70's... it didn't happen. The last major warming was in the 1600's... England was actually know for wine at the time... because global warming helps everything... warmth = more food for the circle of life... huge famines happened when we had a mini-ice age back in the early 1800's. The shortest summer known cause many to starve to death.

People against the third world using cheap energy is a way to keep them without innovation. Solar and wind power is way to expensive and is not practical. Because of these scum forcing unjust laws on the third world there are doctors offices that can use their light or their refridgerators... because they have to use solar power due to the stupid treaties that their ignorant governments signed.

God gave us these resources, they are currently as abundant as the ocean... forcing third worlds from cheap energy so we can hog it for ourselves is unjust. Carbon does not damage the atmosphere. I highly suggest doing some research on volcanos, and how much gases they release... along with the types of gases... 30 volcanos go off every year on average... each one releases more "greenhouse" gases and CFCs than we can do in 10,000 years. So what does this tell us? That we are not affecting the warming of the earth. In the 1600's Galileo noted that when there are more sunspots it's hotter on earth.

Something else that speaks volumes, this group of "scientists" that backs carbon caused warming is not made up of scientists and many scientists who try to get off the list are not removed until after multiple tries and contacting them.


In ten years, after certain scientist finish getting grants for "global warming" studies, they'll simply say they were wrong... then, in about twenty years from now they'll start saying that we're going to go into an ice age because so many solar panels are not allowing the sun's heat to reach the earth. I have little patience for these fear mongering chicken littles of the world who can't make it as real scientists and they seek an easy buck... just like Jack Chick and Rick Jones would couldn't make it as honest writers, so they take the easy way out...

[url="http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments_4.html"]http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...rguments_4.html[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited September 25, 2007 by ironmonk

[XIX]

Oh. Okay.
[quote]It seems like a lot of Catholics have taken "We are called to be stewards of the earth," and morphed it into "Yeah we are called to be stewards of the earth, but..."

We are called to be stewards of the earth. Period. It really doesn't matter whether GW is actually a result of man-made pollution or whatever it is. It may affect the gravity of the situation, and I don't think it's as crucial as anything Al Gore would say. However, we should still keep pollution down, because I don't want to inhale that stuff if I can reasonably avoid it. We have a responsibility to take care of the earth, regardless of whether we have done a good job up to this point in time.

It is like salvation. Whether you conclude that 5% or 95% of all souls go to heaven, that doesn't affect our responsibility to take care of other souls. Same with taking care of the planet. Take care of the planet, and let the whole GW craze take care of itself. All of the debates over GW are, with all due respect, pointless. We know what we need to know: The Church tells us to take care of the planet. The Church implies that it is not as important as other moral issues (abortion, stem cells, gay marriage...yes, even gay marriage, human sexuality, Catholic theology, etc.) So we should also keep the environment in perspective.

But I highly doubt the Pope is going to issue an opinion on GW, either way.[/quote]

[thessalonian]

IM,

I agree. I am not on the "We caused GW" band wagon in the slightest. The high priest of this religion is Al Gore and it is leading people astray. But we do need to be a better job of protecting the enviroment and I have heard that many third world countries are very hard on the eviroment. I think the Vatican can and should address this issue. I do not expect them to speak one way or another on whether GW is true as that is not their place. That is all I am saying. I have not been taken in by the C.R.A.P. - Cockamamie Rubish About the Planet

[morostheos]

This came from Zenit today:

[quote]Holy See Statement on Climate Change

"All Have a Responsibility to Protect the Environment"

NEW YORK, SEPT. 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a statement from Monsignor Pietro Parolin, undersecretary for relations with states in the Vatican Secretariat of State, given Monday during an event on climate change.

* * *

Statement by Monsignor Pietro Parolin
Undersecretary for the Holy See’s Relations with States

62nd session of the U.N. General Assembly

High-level event on climate change titled "The Future Is in Our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change"

New York, Sept. 24, 2007

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express some considerations of the Holy See in light of what we have heard today from the preceding distinguished speakers.

Climate change is a serious concern and an inescapable responsibility for scientists and other experts, political and governmental leaders, local administrators and international organizations, as well as every sector of human society and each human person.

My delegation wishes to stress the underlying moral imperative that all, without exception, have a grave responsibility to protect the environment.

Beyond the various reactions to and interpretations of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the best scientific assessments available have established a link between human activity and climate change.

However, the results of these scientific assessments, and the remaining uncertainties, should neither be exaggerated nor minimized in the name of politics, ideologies or self-interest. Rather they now need to be studied closely in order to give a sound basis for raising awareness and making effective policy decisions.

In recent times, it has been unsettling to note how some commentators have said that we should actually exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences, using a worldview supposedly based on faith. We strongly believe that this is a fundamentally reckless approach.

At the other extreme, there are those who hold up the earth as the only good, and would characterize humanity as an irredeemable threat to the earth, whose population and activity need to be controlled by various drastic means. We strongly believe that such assertions would place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology.

I have highlighted these two extreme positions to make my point, but similar, though less extreme attitudes, would also clearly impede any sound global attempts to promote mitigation, adaptation, resilience and the safeguarding of our common future.

Mr. Chairman,

Since no country alone can solve the problems related to our common environment, we need to overcome self-interest through collective action. On the part of the international community, this presupposes the adoption of a coordinated, effective and prompt international political strategy capable of responding to such a complex question.

It would identify ways and means of mitigation and adaptation that are economically accessible to most, enhance sustainable development and foster a healthy environment.

The economic aspect of such ways and means should be seriously taken into account, considering that poor nations and sectors of society are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change, due to lesser resources and capacity to mitigate their effects and adapt to altered surroundings.

It is foreseeable that programs of mitigation and adaptation would meet a series of barriers and obstacles, not so much of a technological nature, but more so of a social nature, such as consumer behavior and preferences, and of a political nature, like government policies.

We must look at education, especially among the young, to change inbred, selfish attitudes toward consumption and exploitation of natural resources. Likewise, government policies giving economic incentives and financial breaks for more environmentally friendly technologies will give the private sector the positive signal they need to program their product development in such direction.

For instance, present-day research into energy mixes and improving energy efficiency would be made more attractive if accompanied by public funding and other financial incentives.

Mr. Chairman,

We often hear in the halls of the United Nations of “the responsibility to protect." The Holy See believes that applies also in the context of climate change. States have a shared “responsibility to protect” the world’s climate through mitigation/adaptation, and above all a shared “responsibility to protect” our planet and ensure that present and future generations be able to live in a healthy and safe environment.

The pace of achieving and codifying a new international consensus on climate change is not always matched by an equally expeditious and effective pace of implementation of such agreements.

States are free to adopt international conventions and treaties, but unless our words are matched with effective action and accountability, we would do little to avert a bleak future and may find ourselves gathering again not too long from now to lament another collective failure.

We sincerely hope that states will seize the opportunity that will be presented to them shortly at the next Conference on the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Text adapted][/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

just more evidence that it's idiotic to say "global warming is a hoax" and not being open to man made green house gases causing problems.

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2815198120070928"]http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2815198120070928[/url]

sure, solar heating changes caused much of the increase. and the ice might have been melting critically anyway. but, the increases that occured, taht are indisputable, could have caused the extra umph needed to get the ice to melt.
note, when ice melts once it starts you can't stop it as it's avalanche.

this is just one example of all the uncertainties. it takes a very uncritical mind to say solar heating is the problem and man made gases are nothing ot worry about.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1395721' date='Sep 30 2007, 07:28 PM']just more evidence that it's idiotic to say "global warming is a hoax" and not being open to man made green house gases causing problems.

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2815198120070928"]http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2815198120070928[/url]

sure, solar heating changes caused much of the increase. and the ice might have been melting critically anyway. but, the increases that occured, taht are indisputable, could have caused the extra umph needed to get the ice to melt.
note, when ice melts once it starts you can't stop it as it's avalanche.

this is just one example of all the uncertainties. it takes a very uncritical mind to say solar heating is the problem and man made gases are nothing ot worry about.[/quote]
Calling me idiotic... LOL BAH HAHAHAHA...

It's only uncertain to scientists who make their money from the study.

Now, go get a learn on before you start trying to call me an idiot... this might look a little pompous but it's to give someone who doesn't know how to research critically or read all views and apply sound logic to a topic, some insight to who she is calling an idiot.... I don't debate unless I've done my homework - this means researching both sides and trying to find some non-bias, this means researching the researchers and looking for their possible mottives... I have an IQ of 147... this is higher than Steven Hawkings... what does it mean? It means that I'm good with logic and solving problems. When most people are watching TV, I'm normally studying something. I have a strong mathmatics and science background... I also have a love of philosophy and psychology. The WHOLE point to this paragraph... Man made global warming is indeed a hoax period end of story. When I see a good amount of real research and reasoning, meaning that they take into account all variables, then I would change my opinion, but the facts against "man made" global warming speak volumes to a single or few points that the hoaxsters try to make.

Facts - just one or two puts a nail in the coffin of MMGW:
-Mars is experiencing a warming.
-Human output of carbon is miniscule compared to natural occurences.
-The simulated tests that have been completed by some "scientists" double to triple CO2 amounts and still cannot simulate the earth properly.
-Watervapor is a greater "greenhouse" gas than CO2
-Other parts of the world have been experiencing record cold weather
-Glaciers are always melting and more ice is always forming

The earth stays in equilibrium... it's not fragile... the equilibrium cycle is wider than the hoaxters what you to believe.

Manmade global warming is a hoax. Follow the money, do the research on the "researchers", learn logical reasoning, and think.

[SarahB]

I don't understand why people can't understand it's just a natural cycle.

It's just one more bandwagon the liberals are able to jump on so they can make up a bunch more laws and restrict our liberty even more.


I'm not saying that we don't do some horrible things when it comes to the enviornment and that those things need attention. But ironmonk is right. Research it before you go calling a position idiotic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

just to be clear... i am aware it is only weak circumstantial evidence i was citing with the tipping point of ice. if the ice is reaching a tipping point, and if temperatures increase substantially some from cars etc, the cars etc might be causing the tipping that is occuring.
essentially, i could have cited anything that is resulting from warming.

iron has never cited studies for his volcano theories, as long as he's pushed his belief about global warming (he jsut believe it cause it's the conservative position, and he'll do whatever it takes to espouse it). the only article i've seen on it, in that limbaugh thread, showed that the volcano theorists are basing their evidence on volcanic activity from 700000 years ago. i am open to an actual cite for volcanic activity.

the real proof that it might be man made. look at that study i cited. it expressly stated that only a third of the warming within the last century is from solar cycle. where's the rest come from? should we assume the scientists are wrong and that emissions cause no warming? if it causes warming, how much? the ice and all the other effects of warming are occurring... would they be occuring without hte extra umpf of man made warming? how much temperature increase does it take to make the ice melt?
where are these alleged vocano studies? even if the volcanoes cause a lot, would emissions from man be a sufficient extra umpf? the norm of emissions is consrant, conceivably, after all, so man emissions would only add extra effects to it.

unless you can answer these questions, you have no business saying global warming is hoax. like other rational people, you have to be open to what science teaches us. the jury is out, the info is lacking. to absolutist here, is only exposing the personality of the person: they are absolutist too much. you can't apply religous certainty minds to politics, and especially science. i've gotten scores of upper 140s on IQ tests before. usually it's lower 130s maybe upper 120s. i doubt iron gets that consistently. whatever the case, i'm not dumb or lack logic. even if IQ mattered in this thread, i've got my bases covered to be someone to listen to, and you don't win automatically, just cause yours is higher. whtever the case, it's a red herring. it's just a distraction to fluff up his argument.

again, unless you can answer those questions, it's idiotic to say global warming is a hoax.

Edited October 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not the best cite, but i've posted this before and it bears positng again.
[url="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72"]http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72[/url]

note, the critique of that article in the comments section said that no sane person claims that volcanos cause GW. he said it was just a distraction.

i am open to an actual study, and will admit i'm wrong once more conclusive proof is posted. i cant believe someone would post what iron has posted so far and consider it a proof that MMGW is unsubstantial. what's been posted so far is what i'd expect to see in a third grade science report.

[quote]"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)."
[url="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html"]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html[/url][/quote][quote][/quote]

Edited October 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, here is exponential growth of carbon emissions evidence.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png[/url]

add that to the graphs gore cited showing a correclation between CO2 and temperture. i am aware that correlation does not prove causation, but it's certainly some proof.

[ironmonk]

Anyone can add to wikipedia, so the value of wiki is low.

Numbers in that study are not real... you can't take a display of over 400,000 years of data in a seven inch graph seriously. That is a blatent attempt at keeping the guise of the hoax. Anyone with a scientific mind would know this.

The accurracy of the data would be in serious question in anything over 5000 years.

There is nothing to indicate that any warming is man made.

Carbon levels increase after heat does.

The industrial revolution has not caused a significant rise in CO2 whatsoever. That conclusion is a complete lie.

The industrial revolution has done less "damage" to the planet via CO2 than a eye dropper full of bleach could do to the ocean.

[jeffpugh]

Dude, she cited more than a wiki topic. But, I agree with the facts you have presented. I'm just goona take care of the earth like a Catholic Christian though. Stewardship for the win. First thing: cut down garbage output....