So I asked the Vatican about global warming... Special Report

By Marshall Connolly, Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
3/15/2013
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The Church agrees with the scientific consensus.

Recently, I wrote an article for Catholic Online about global warming. The comments from so many readers, obviously intelligent, gave me pause and I took it upon myself to conduct further research, specifically into the Church's teachings on the subject. I pledged in advance to accept what I would discover, no matter what my personal opinions were, after all, I am Catholic and I have faith in my Church. Surprisingly, I soon found the Church has a well-developed, scientific position on the subject.

Yes, it's real and getting worse and it doesn't just hurt polar bears. It hurts people.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - In the United States, the issue of anthropogenic global warming, defined as an unnatural and rapid rise in the Earth's overall average temperature caused by human activities, is strongly associated with left-leaning political ideology.

Publicly championed by liberal celebrities such as former Vice President Al Gore, conservatives often scoff at the claim. At one time, I confess even I scoffed at the claims, for it also happens that many American Catholics also tend to be conservative since American political conservatism fits most closely with Catholic teaching on many subjects.

However, global warming is by definition global, and therefore it is a Catholic issue, and the people of other nations have different views on the subject as a matter of political debate.

This is especially true in the third world, where the impacts of global warming are felt most acutely.

In the United States, there are several charges against global warming.

-    Global warming is a myth constructed by the left to justify restrictions on liberty.
-    There is no scientific consensus on the issue of global warming so any policy changes are premature.
-    Global warming is part of natural climate change and beyond our control, so we should not concern ourselves with changing behavior.
-    The science done to demonstrate the fact of global warming is flawed by poor methodology.
-    The science is fabricated by researchers seeking grant money or wishing to make a name for themselves.

As mentioned above, I decided to seek the teaching of the Church on the subject rather than listen to possibly tainted and biased mainstream reporting. I contacted the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and received a reply from Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Bishop-Chancellor of the Academy.

I asked him for teaching on the subject and his reply included several links to papers and research, which the Academy itself conducted. The Bishop-Chancellor also noted that much of the work was done in coordination with academicians, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and V. Ramanathan who are noted researchers in the field.

Perhaps this was the most conclusive statement I read in the publication he sent, Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate:

"There is now a growing consensus that human activities are having a discernible effect on the Earth's climate (IPCC, 1996). An enormous amount of effort has gone into the scientific research that forms the basis for this judgment. There is also growing concern that such human-influenced changes to the Earth's climate could have negative effects on human societies and on the Earth's ecosystems and therefore that these changes should be avoided or slowed." (Toward a New Approach to Climate Impact Studies, sec. 16.1, Will Steffen).

In another publication from May 2011, and bearing the very seal of the Pontifical Academy I found this statement, "We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants."

Ultimately, this was a conclusive read for me.

I trust the Holy Church and the wisdom of the scientists it employs. Their agenda isn't research money, but truth, which is one of the most sacred values espoused by the Church itself.

Of course, I'll admit, my argument here is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority - albeit the highest one on the matter I might add.

So what about all those objections? Where are they coming from and why are some scientists saying no? The answer has much to do with American politics and capitalism, and even the nature of science itself.

Science is skeptical by nature. A scientist who can find evidence that challenges a broadly accepted theory can make a reputation that may last for their entire career. It's a powerful incentive to review the work of other scientists and to detect their shortcomings and flaws.

To discern facts, scientists must submit their work and results (potential facts or conclusions) for peer review. Those of you who are scientists already know how this works. For those who may not know, peer review means that other scientists in the discipline try to replicate the results of the original research as well as detect flaws in methodology. If enough scientists agree with the methods and the findings then they may come out in support of the research or simply remain silent. In cases where they detect a problem, they speak ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 33 Comments

JoAnn
1 month ago
People can listen to Democratic Socialists propaganda or they can research for themselves.
They "globalists" call information that they do not want the citizens to know conspiracy theories. Our "Regulations Czar" Cass Sunstein, told his comrades "to discredit all conspiracy theories even if they're true." They cannot afford to have the American people learn the truth. It would only make it harder for them to complete their agenda. Again, I encourage everyone to read the United Nations report, "Agenda 21 on "Sustainable Development" and make up your own minds. It is true the "League of Nations" was during Woodrow Wilson's presidency and he wanted us to join BUT America knew better at that time, and told Wilson an emphatic "NO." Lo and behold years later FDR gets in office and under the pretense of making a safer world,. FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin ushered in the United Nations. Unfortunately, a communist spy (IAlger Hiss) was sent to Russia to draft the agreements and gave Russia most of the countries, which resulted in the Berlin wall years later. America became skeptical and when Alger Hiss was proven to be a spy, AND CONVICTED,America was not very happy. I am in the last 1/4 of a century in age, so I have lived through most of what I have written. I have been through wars and qute a few presidential elections and I have watched this country lose its sovereignty little by little and it is breaking my heart. The "globalists" are hard at work and we are about to lose our country. "We have before us, the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a "New World Order." A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this "New World Order," an order in which a credible United Nations, can use its peace keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the United Nations's founders." George Herbert Walker Bush. He said this when the Berlin wall came down. "First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be, to many, a bitter pill. It will take a lot of courage, a lot of faith, a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessiity. Today we must develop old structures on a global level. To deal with world problems, we need a "forcible world law," a democratic world government. Pat Robinson has written in a book a few years ago, that we should have a world government, but ONLY when the "Messiah" arrives. (Laughter) He wrote, any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil. (Laughter) Well, join me, I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan." Walter Cronkite, at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations. "Who controls the food supply, controls the people; who controls energy, controls the continent; who controls the money, controls the world." Henry Kissinger "We must exterpate all genecide, aparthied and religious exclusiveness." Mikail Gorbachev in his book entitled "Perstroika" "In the 21st century, national sovereignty, as we have known it, will cease to exist. We will all answer to a single global authority." Strobe Talbot from the article he wrote "Birth of the Global Nation" which appeared in Time magazine July 20, 1992. If you don't know who Strobe Talbot is, he is a close friend of Bill Clinton. They were roommates in England in school. "This present window of opportunity during which a truly peaceful and interdependent World Order might be built, will not be open for too long. We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis (global warming) and the nations will accept the NEW WORLD ORDER." David Rockefeller, 1994 "He who votes does not have the power. He who counts the votes has the power." George Soros quoting Stalin. AND, "A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama's circle is offered by a recent report from the "Managing Global Insecurity Project", whose small U. S. advisory group that includes John Pedesta, the man heading Mr. Obama's transition team, and Strobe Talbot, the president of the Brookings Institute from which Miss Rice has just emerged. The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN "High Commissioner" for counter-terrorist activities, a legally binding "climate-change" agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000 strong UN peace keeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserved army, the UN would have 1st call upon them." Financial Times magazine in article entitled: "And Now For A World Government." Dec. 8, 2008. All of the above is thought provoking. You can do with it what you will. God bless.

PS: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jefferson
Lorna
1 month ago
The "UN wants to take over the world" theory has been disproved time and time again. Please remember that the Vatican holds permenant observer status at the UN.

The idea of the UN actually came from the old League of Nations, which was unable to prevent WWII. There was widespread recognition that humanity could not afford a third World War, with the advent of nuclear weapons. The name is the term President FD Roosevelt used for the Allied nations in WWII. The conference to set up the new United Nations started on 24th April 1945. The US, the UK, China, France and the Soviet Union, plus 46 other nations in attendance, signed the United Nations charter and when those countries ratified it, the UN came into existance on the 24th of October 1945. No Nazi spies, no secret agenda. The aim of cooperation on international law and governance simply means respect for other countries rights and preventing a repeat of the Holocaust, not a "one world government". Those rumours were started by groups like the John Birch Society in the US.

Without the UN, the world would likely have spilled into another war. There would be no Israel. As proof that the UN is not all-powerful, the US and UK could go to war in Iraq against the UN's wishes.

The UN doesn't control the science of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is made up of idependent scientists, who don't have a political agenda. They don't undertake any research themselves, they simply review that latest research and findings and take all of it into account. This is actually a really good way of doing science, since any research with a political agenda will be cancelled out. The IPCC was set up in response to scientists' warnings about climate change, it didn't "invent" it.

As the article points out, if climate change were false, someone would've published real evidence of it by now. Being the person who demolishes a theory is a great way to make your name in science. It's how we've all heard of Einstien. The famous climate change skeptic Dr Richard Muller's own research changed his mind. Last year, his own review of temperature records convinced him that humans are almost entirely to blame for climate change.

Climate change is real happening now and is dangerous. What kinds of Christians would we be if we don't make simple changes to our lifestyles to prevent our brothers and sisters in today's developing countries suffering? Those in such countries suffer terribly as a result of the extreme weather events and climate change that global warming will cause. The people often live in poorly constructed houses which are much more prone to damage or collapse, they have no resources to fall back on if their houses and crops are destroyed, their governments do not have the resources to help in times of crisis and are much less able to help those suffering as a result. To allow that to happen simply because we don't want to make a few simple and painless changes to our lifestyle is to fail in our Christian duty. The longer we leave it before changing, the bigger and more painful the changes have to be.

Those who maintain that climate change is fake and come up with conspiracy theories do so because they don't want to face the fact that their own way of life has to change. Making small changes will have only benefits for you, you'll save money. Saving energy means that you don't need to pay for that energy. As I pointed out in a previous post, it is also a patriotic thing to do, as it would allow the US to stop depending on other countries to supply the oil. If the US doesn't lead the way in developing alternative technology, it just means that another country will get the money, the jobs and the corresponding power.

Our Holy Father has called for Catholics to care for the enviroment and to help the poor. Part of doing those things includes reducing our energy usage. God bless
JoAnn
1 month ago
After WWII, the UN was founded as an international org. to maintain peace and security by developing friendly relationships between nations and promoting social progress. The idea behind this institution sounded great until it was discovered that the charter establishing the UN was drafted by a convicted communist spy, Alger Hiss. A Socialist world gvernment is the goal and promoting belief in "global warming" is the #1 vehicle to reach that goal. This is the main goal of the global warming and climate change hoax. The UN elites know that a perpetual global, life-threatening crisis is necessary to convince wealthy nations to accept the punitive cost of cap and trade taxes. Wealth redistribution is exactly what carbon cap and trade laws are designed to accomplish. Unless they are also globalists, scientists have proven that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with global warming. Global warming fear mongering is simply a scheme put together by global elites to redistriute the weath of the world and to move us into world government. Global warming is only one of the messages being used to force the nations of the world into world government. Anytime you hear global governance propaganda like Agenda 21, sustainable development, nationalized healthcare, social justice and national identification programs...think world government. But it is global warming that is presently the poster child being used to frighten everyone into giving up freedom in order to save the planet. Former governor of the state of Washington, Dixie Lee Ray probably summed it up best when she said,"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to - compliance." Compliance to a communistic world governing body is the goal and the global warming deception is the "life threatening crisis" that the UN has chosen to get there. Picking and choosing what to believe in our faith does not include personal opinions. No matter who is giving them. Yes, we are to be stewards of this planet but not FOOLS. Catholics are to believe whatever is doctrine and everything that is taught us pertaining to faith and morals. That is where the infallibility of the Pope lies. Not in secular opinions. I encourage everyone to pull up the UN report on Agenda 21: Sustainable Development and read about what is happening to us and our freedoms. Then you can make your own "informed" decision regarding "global warming." God bless.
jpaYMCA
1 month ago
This "catholic" website's (or its directors') inability to distinguish between "what the Church says" and an associated academic body that has use of Vatican property to conduct research, is, well, appalling. This is first-year theology stuff: distinctions about the so-called argument from authority, WHEN and HOW the Church can speak authoritatively, etc.

Please, Kyrie eleison
Lorna
1 month ago
As an astrophysicist, I had to study planetary atmospheres and the effects that gases within those atmospheres. I'd like to answer a few of the questions raised by other commenters.

First of all, how global warming happens. We burn fossil fuels, which contain lots of carbon. As they burn, the carbon atoms combine with oxygen from our atmosphere, producing carbon dioxide. When the Sun's light reaches Earth, the CO2 in our atmosphere reflects away the infra-red light (heat). When the remaining light hits the ground, it gives it energy. The ground gives off this energy in the form of heat. Before we started burning lots of fossil fuels, this heat would radiate away into space. But CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb this heat and reflect it back to the ground again. It's like the inside of your car when it's left in the summer sun. The heat just builds up and up. This is known science and has been accepted for many years.

Why were the scientists predicting global cooling in the 1970s? It was because of the presence of a lot of pollution in the atmosphere, from heavy industry and volcanic eruptions. These reflected sunlight away from the Earth before it hit the ground. Because the scientists hadn't taken the increased level of carbon dioxide into account, partly because the calculations are so difficult. As more information came in about the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate, measurements of solar activity and more accurate climate readings came in, climate scientists realised that far from cooling, the long-term trend was actually for warming. When you measure the CO2 levels from ice cores, add in the climate data from the ice cores, tree rings etc, you get a very good correlation.

Previous ice ages and warmer periods were caused by long-term changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. These cycles were carefully calculated and correspond to the frequency of ice ages. The warmer periods were caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by huge areas of constantly erupting volcanoes, these can be 200,000 square miles in extent. One that occured about 65 million years ago may have wiped out much of the sealife, before the asteroid impact took out the dinosaurs.

Global warming doesn't neccesarily mean that the weather will be warmer where you live. It means that the world will warm overall, but the warming will be more extreme at the poles and least at the equator. However, all over the planet, the weather will become more unpredictable. Rain patterns will change, with many areas of the US experiencing drought. There will be more extreme weather events. It could even plunge Europe into a mini ice age, by turning off the Gulf Stream that warms it. For example, where I live in Scotland we get a few days of snow a year. At this latitude in Canada, there are polar bears. Having these problems means that the West could end up as the new "Second world" while countries like India and China become the new global superpowers.

We can't afford a policy of "wait and see". We have to act now, because we are fast approaching a series of "tipping points", where easy reversal of a problem becomes impossible. If anything, the predictions made by climate scientists are conservative.

What can you do to stop it? Reduce your impact on the enviroment. Don't use the car for short trips, walk instead. Drive a car that gets as many miles to the gallon as possible and don't leave the engine running when you're out of the car. Buy locally produced food where possible. Use energy efficent electrical products, including lightbulbs. Don't leave TVs, computers, lights, etc on when you're not using them. Unplug those electrical items (especially TVs and computers), don't leave them on standby The best bit about all of this is IT SAVES YOU MONEY! That's why climate change deniers don't want you to do these things, they want their companies to keep taking as much of your money as possible.

Saving as much energy as possible is also a patriotic thing to do. If Americans stopped wasting energy - by leaving their car running, driving to places a few hundred yards away, leaving their computers and TVs on, etc - the US could be self-sufficent in oil and other energy needs. Because we do these things, the US has to buy billions of dollars of oil from Middle Eastern countries. A lot of those oil dollars get funneled into promoting an extremist form of Islam in poor countries, where there are no other facilities. For example, Saudi Arabia funds mosques, madrasas and the printing of Korans that teach the Wahabbist form of Islam. Remember that Osama Bin Laden was Saudi, as were 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

Our new Holy Father has said that all Catholics should be caring for the environment. I find it interesting that the very people who say that you can't pick and choose the bits of Catholic you want to follow, make excuses about "Satan" or "communists" taking over the Vatican when it says somthing THEY don't like.

I hope that helps. If you have any questions, please just ask.
Br. Joseph Murray, OSA
1 month ago
I enjoyed this article tremendously. I wish that our science was as up-to-date in areas of human anthropology. There, I'm afraid, we are sadly lacking.
Peace!
Bob
2 months ago
Unfortunately some of the same folks who want us to do "something" about global warming also want ZPG. I lived during and survived the 70's when "Zero Population Growth" was the "in" thing. I don't doubt our earth is warming, but I'm not sure what we can do about it, except to try and be good stewards where we can.
Proteios1
2 months ago
Aside from invoking the conspiracy silliness in order to deny the reality that the Church has a strong scientific tradition...heck, we invented the scientific method (Bishop of Lincoln)...there is merit to climate change. As a scientist(not a mason or boogeyman, etc), my assessment is that humans are having an impact on the environment. It takes far too much denial to think otherwise. But is it overstated? Yes. Is it overpopulation? Not likely. It's like saying population leads to poverty and not exploitation of people. Similarly, it's poor practices, not numbers of people, I mean, look how few generate all the pollution. Climate change is likely due to our mining and energy consumption. A relatively minor volcanic event causes varying degrees of climate change, temp changes around the world. Good science supports this. Humans generate more than some of these events each year. So it isn't rocket science, nor is it a conspiracy or merely an opinion to link our output with climate changes.

Denial is as useless as claiming the sky will fall. It's like me getting a report about nuns honoring a new age Wiccan as keynote speaker and then being in denial that it clashes with Catholic teaching and blame the Vatican report or the bishop involved. That's ignorance that permits a problem to continue.
Ed
2 months ago
After reading the article and reviewing the data and video at the links, it is a very persuasive argument. But I have one last question? In my lifetime during the 70's in particular, I remember the big hoopla about Global Cooling and how in my lifetime, Florida would start to resemble the state of Maine climate wise. Instead of freezing, over that last decade or two I have been told that I will instead broil to death, yet, I haven't heard what became of the Global Freeze. Nor just how the heck it turned from freezing to warming?
In fact a little informal research will also show that over the last 100 years or so there has been this swaying back and forth by scientists and other experts (motivated by what I don't claim to know) that the earth was freezing, then warming, then freezing, then warming, etc., etc. What is up with that? Are you going to tell me that it was the same motivating factors of today back in the late 1800’s?
Therefore, the only conclusion I draw is that this is either an elaborate plot stretching for decades (nearly a century), or the fact is that Scientist really don't know. That instead every few decades scientist find indicators that support one theory or the other and off they go with it, but in reality, the scope of it all is so large and their understanding of it all so limited, that at best it is an educated guess based on the facts at hand at the moment. I am not going to deny that human beings have an impact, in fact I firmly believe all living creatures in this biosphere contribute. I just question how much, and how much is really out of our control. While we should always take measures to respect and properly husband the resources given to us by God, let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot either, through a lack of judiciousness.
Jerry N
2 months ago
J Bob: "my point was while they track (correlate) to one another, as ice core data shows..."

Some ice core data may show such a correlation, but extrapolating temperature and CO2 concentration measurements from ice core samples is not precise science and leaves lots of room for measurement error. The possible error is much greater than the observed changes, thus the data must be viewed with a rather large dose of NaCl. That was my point.

I agree with you that the recent satellite temperature measurements made by NASA are the only ones that may have some connection to reality. You are correct in stating those measurements have been made only since the 1970s, having started to be acquired in 1977 or 78 I think. Unfortunately, once a satellite has been placed in orbit it is not easy to service or maintain it indefinitely, so if we run out of funds to launch new satellites, these measurements could be disrupted, and a consistent, reliable trend will never be established. Even if new satellites are available, it may take 40 or 50 more years before anyone can draw any statistically sound conclusions about global warming or cooling from them. I have perused the published NASA satellite data several times, and the only conclusion I can draw from it is that there is no clear trend that can be established. The data can be used to show either slight warming or cooling trends exist, depending on which geographic and atmospheric altitude locations one chooses to analyze. .

Prev12 3 4 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment