The Climate Change cultists are impervious to facts and reason. Interesting that the response to “climate change” is always more government control by morons and higher taxes
Conserving resources is always a good idea. What’s wrong with good mileage and clean(er) air and use of renewable resources, all things being equal? We may in fact not be the “cause” of global warming, but why not try to quit aggravating the problem? A little asceticism here and there can be good for the soul.
JD, my sentiments exactly and much more persuasive than infallibility declaring we are the cause of normal shifts in the climate. Good stewardship of our souls and bodies and the good Mother Earth are to be encouraged. At the same time the Church must teach unambiguously that the earth and humans are terminal.
No one is claiming that "we are the cause of normal shifts in the climate."
That humans are "terminal" has nothing to do with taking care of the earth. That is a very selfish notion, one that radiates the kind of radical individualism that too often forms the basis of peoples' actions and choices. No, I take care of the earth not only for myself, but for those who come after me. Maybe many thousands of generations.
From NASA, note the last sentence in this summary paragraph. "Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past."
The science that discovered the “facts” posted on the sign is certainly man-made. Isn’t it passing strange how science is so often invoked to support a favored position but dismissed when it supports a disfavored position?
By the way, what was the state of life 450 million years ago? And what were humans doing 50,000 years ago? 40,000 years ago? 15,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago? Isn’t the veneer of civilization very recent and very thin, the latter like Earth’s fragile “critical zone?” Are these questions relevant to the issue of global warming and what we should do about it?
Also isn’t it interesting to contemplate how so many of our fellow Christians would regard the first five questions, and perhaps the comparison in the sixth question, as completely illegitimate, for God created the universe in seven days just a few thousand years ago, which must mean that almost all of the “facts” on the sign are completely wrong?!
Climate change is a religion as much as scientism. It not about the climate is about the degrowth of the developed world so the Great Reset can move forward.
7 comments:
The Climate Change cultists are impervious to facts and reason. Interesting that the response to “climate change” is always more government control by morons and higher taxes
Conserving resources is always a good idea. What’s wrong with good mileage and clean(er) air and use of renewable resources, all things being equal? We may in fact not be the “cause” of global warming, but why not try to quit aggravating the problem? A little asceticism here and there can be good for the soul.
JD, my sentiments exactly and much more persuasive than infallibility declaring we are the cause of normal shifts in the climate. Good stewardship of our souls and bodies and the good Mother Earth are to be encouraged. At the same time the Church must teach unambiguously that the earth and humans are terminal.
No one is claiming that "we are the cause of normal shifts in the climate."
That humans are "terminal" has nothing to do with taking care of the earth. That is a very selfish notion, one that radiates the kind of radical individualism that too often forms the basis of peoples' actions and choices. No, I take care of the earth not only for myself, but for those who come after me. Maybe many thousands of generations.
From NASA, note the last sentence in this summary paragraph. "Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
Fr. K,
And Europe was hotter in the Middle Ages than today
The science that discovered the “facts” posted on the sign is certainly man-made. Isn’t it passing strange how science is so often invoked to support a favored position but dismissed when it supports a disfavored position?
By the way, what was the state of life 450 million years ago? And what were humans doing 50,000 years ago? 40,000 years ago? 15,000 years ago? 4,000 years ago? Isn’t the veneer of civilization very recent and very thin, the latter like Earth’s fragile “critical zone?” Are these questions relevant to the issue of global warming and what we should do about it?
Also isn’t it interesting to contemplate how so many of our fellow Christians would regard the first five questions, and perhaps the comparison in the sixth question, as completely illegitimate, for God created the universe in seven days just a few thousand years ago, which must mean that almost all of the “facts” on the sign are completely wrong?!
Climate change is a religion as much as scientism. It not about the climate is about the degrowth of the developed world so the Great Reset can move forward.
Post a Comment