CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Pope on Climate Change
Do you believe that the Pope should be taking an official position for the church in support of efforts to effect climate change or do you believe that such a politically charged issue should be left to politicians?
I may not currently be catholic but I was certainly raised catholic and keep in touch with my catholic family, and I share their strong feelings about this: If god created Earth for humanity, then it is our responsibility to take care of it. In that sense, it should be every Christians responsibility (and particularly the Pope's) to call for strong action in favor of environmental protections, as a means of fulfilling the responsibility to take care of the gift that was given.
Does it concern you that GW is not supported by many Catholics, who now have to cooperate with another ruling of the church that they don't agree with.
Actually, many Catholics believe in GW. Regardless, the Church isn't supposed to base their stances according to public opinion, or so they like to claim when it comes to birth control or same-sex marriage, so why should it base it on public opinion for climate change? And even if around half of Catholics don't believe in man-made climate change, I hardly see how they (those that don't believe in man-made climate change, I mean) can justify not fighting for increased environmental protections in order to be proper, responsible stewards of the gift they were given. Climate Change is hardly the only justification for environmental protections, after all, and I don't think anyone can deny that humanity has damaged the environment in many, many ways.
Is there any reason to believe we are actually going to be able to reverse a global warming trend? What actual progress can we point to, that says the decades of spending has had any measurable effect on the global climate?
That is pure defeatism, and somewhat irrelevant to my greater point. The very fact that we do not definitively know that our efforts would be pointless is, itself, reason to try. But like I said, the greater point is irrelevant to man-made global warming. Most of the ideas called for to combat climate change would be net-positives for the climate (regardless of man made climate change), and, ultimately, net positives for the economy in the long term once oil, coal, and natural gas have been exhausted.
Mind you that is not me saying that the methods we are currently employing are the ideals. But saying "our efforts haven't worked, so we should stop trying" is defeatism, and saying "we don't know if we can help, so we shouldn't even try" is defeatism (not that you said either of those, mind you).
The notion that the Pope is not a politician is a frankly naive assessment. The Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Vatican is a recognized city-state with its own independent economy, politics, and government. Asking if the Pope should weigh in on climate change is like asking if any head of state should do so, and to answer in negation is confounding at best.
That said I would personally prefer the Pope and the Vatican stay out of all affairs as much as possible, though it is hardly in their interest to do so (which is partially why I wish they would, I suppose).
Noting that the Pope is simply another politician is ignoring his impact on 1.2 billion people. He speaks for God, in the minds of many followers. This sets him apart from those who simply govern.
I never said that the Pope was "simply another politician". I identified the Pope as the head of the Papal State which has its seat in the Vatican. The power of the Pope and the Vatican derives from the religious influence of the Pope, rather as one might argue that the power of the U.S. derives from economics and/or the military. I was not ignoring that power, merely assuming it as a mechanism which permits the Pope to operate as a head of state with some authority on international affairs. The rest of my analysis stands.
I never said that the Pope was "simply another politician".
You compared the Pope and Vatican city to other nations
The notion that the Pope is not a politician is a frankly naive assessment. The Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Vatican is a recognized city-state with its own independent economy, politics, and government. Asking if the Pope should weigh in on climate change is like asking if any head of state should do so, and to answer in negation is confounding at best.
Clearly implying an equivalence.
The influence of the Pope is derived not from the fact that he rules Vatican city, but purely from a belief among 1,200,000,000 people in the Christian God. His position is completely different from any other world leader on any other nation. Political "Hot Potatoes" are not within the purview of religion.
IMO by participating on the world stage and taking political positions that unnecessarily divide Catholics, the Pope is entering into a worldly debate best left to leaders of actual world nations.
That said I would personally prefer the Pope and the Vatican stay out of all affairs as much as possible, though it is hardly in their interest to do so
I share your preference on the Pope staying out as much as possible, but I do not see how a position on GW does anything for the Catholics who are already conflicted on the subject. coulda, shoulda left it alone -- IMO
You compared the Pope and Vatican city to other nations
I compared the Pope to other heads of state; that is quite different than "simply another politician".
Clearly implying an equivalence. [...] any other nation.
An equivalence of power and function, perhaps, but I have already acknowledged that the Vatican derives its power differently than other nation-states.
Political "Hot Potatoes" are not within the purview of religion. IMO by participating on the world stage and taking political positions that unnecessarily divide Catholics, the Pope is entering into a worldly debate best left to leaders of actual world nations. & I share your preference on the Pope staying out as much as possible, but I do not see how a position on GW does anything for the Catholics who are already conflicted on the subject. coulda, shoulda left it alone -- IMO
The Catholic Church has been involved in politics and "hot issues" as long as it has had the power to do so. This is hardly a new phenomenon, and even if it were a contemporary practice it hardly started with the current Pope.
Acknowledging climate change is not an unintelligent maneuver. What division exists among Catholics on the matter already exists, and arguably establishing a standard for adherence resolves the issue more than letting it go unaddressed. Moreover, climate change most adversely affects developing nations which also happen to represent the most reliable following for Catholicism (compare this to the diminishing religiosity of Western nations including even the U.S.). Further, climate change is divisive along the age demographic and more consistently a concern and issue among younger persons whom the Church needs to attract and retain to secure its longer term viability.
Again. The Catholic church is part of the political process (non-religious). It has been so for over a thousand years. Maybe you are thinking of another church.
Pope Francis entered a controversial area knowing that he would be criticized by some, nevertheless, he wants to demonstrate that he can enter the political realm and remain sectarian.
Secret electromagnetic warfare systems by the United States government do not, in any way, deny the existence of a warming climate. The idea that the global scientific community is all in on some conspiracy is absurd.
Carlin was funny at times, but this bit is pretty horrible. He starts by making fun of people who are "worried" about a list of things, many of which cause fatal illness and kill people every single day. He then goes on to make fun of people who worry about endangered species, claiming that trying to prevent species from going extinct is meddling with nature and points to how many species go extinct all the time, whilst failing to recognize that meddling with nature is what caused so many of them to become endangered in the first place, leading to the very rate that he cites.
Then we get to global warming. Starting with "We can't take care of ourselves, so we can't take care of the planet", despite the fact that an inability to take care of the planet is part of the inability to take care of ourselves.
He then attacks "environmentalists" as a whole, making grandiose claims about the psychological background of every single one of them, with (of course), zero basis. He then, without any scientific evidence or background, claims there is "nothing wrong with the planet" (something that, of course, almost the entire scientific community disagrees with), despite the fact that the topic in question was clearly referring to "climate". He then trots out the classic argument that "the planet has been around for so long, how could we possibly affect it", which might sound nice, but is not scientifically founded.
Then, of course, he lists plenty of things that have indeed happened to the planet that have had, what we would consider, negative effects, as if it somehow lessens the effects of those which we have caused.
But ultimately, he gets around to the point: The fact that harming the environment will harm humans, if not wipe us out, which is ultimately what environmentalists claim.
His entire bit is based on the idea that the planet itself will continue, which nobody claims otherwise, and so is irrelevant to the conversation at hand (particularly when he acknowledges that the climate itself gets harmed).
meddling with nature is what climate change is all about..if you can not take care of yourself but want to take care of everything else .where is the sense?really " entire scientific community disagrees with"
here is a quote
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
Secret electromagnetic warfare systems by the United States government do not, in any way, deny the existence of a warming climate. The idea that the global scientific community is all in on some conspiracy is absurd.
Well, only if he can present a way by which this most vital goal can be achieved. Until then he should reserve his pompous outbursts for when he's entertaining his pious guests at the numerous night's of ''fine dining at the Vatican''. Any fool can make such statements, but it's our scientists, ( and not the locked away from reality, ''holy men and women of god), who are working desperately to find a carbon free form of energy.
Hemp seed oil can be used in place of petroleum in virtually all products. Bio diesel can be made from hemp. Using hemp seed oil as bio diesel would be the best choice for many reasons. Corn and other food sources would increase the cost of corn as food for people and animals.Hempseed oil can do anything petroleum can do, but cleaner. Hemp seed oil can be made into plastic, foam for cushion or insulation, resins and varnish products, bio diesel, fuel for bbq’s lanterns, oil stoves, etc…Hemp actually revitalizes the soil it grows in, both by aerating the soil and through the deposit of carbon dioxide in to it. This makes hemp ideal for crop rotation, and the crop that follows in the soil hemp grew in will develop better than if hemp had not been used.
• Hemp does not require herbicides or pesticides.
• Hemp can be grown in a wide range of latitudes and altitudes.
• Hemp replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen, making it an excellent rotational crop.
• Hemp controls erosion of the topsoil.
• Hemp converts CO2 to oxygen better than trees.
• Hemp produces more oil than any other crop, which can be used for food, fuel, lubricants, soaps, etc.
• Hemp nut is a very healthy food, being the highest protein crop (after soybean,hemp is not GMO) and high in omega oils.
• Hemp can be used for making plastics, including car parts.
• Hemp makes paper more efficiently and ecologically than wood, requiring no chemical glues.
• Hemp can be used to make fiberboard.
• Hemp can be used to make paint.
• Hemp can produce bio-fuel and ethanol (better than corn).
• Hemp can be grown more than once per year.
• Hemp fibers can make very strong rope and textiles.
1 Acre of hemp can create 500 GALLONS of bio-diesel fuel.
6% of U.S. Acreage comes out to about 142,797,888 acres. 500 gallons per acre equals 71,398,944,000 gallons. This amount can be produced 3 times a year, making the number of total gallons per year, just on 6% of U.S. soil 214,196,832,000. This is the maximum amount that can be created with optimum conditions, per year. Americans use 137,801,370,000 gallons of petroleum based fuels per year. Replace oil now!