Global Warming
OK, what is American Papist's deal with global warming? It seems like he links to every little article out there that is contradictory to or dismissive of claims of the existence of global warming and its consequences or that it is human-caused. This is the kind of thing that really bugs me, when Catholics integrate their political ideologies into their theology, when they make their politics a part of their religion.
There are really no credible scientists who deny the existence of global warming. The global climate has been on a warming trend. Now, there is legitimate debate to be had as to whether the current warming trend is significantly due to human activity. There are no credible scientists who will say definitively that human activity has *not* contributed to this warming trend, but there are credible scientists who are yet to be convinced. Despite this, the overwhelming consensus is that the evidence sufficiently supports the conclusion that human activity *has* contributed significantly to this warming trend.
Global warming might be a good thing for shippers wanting to use the northwest passage, but the reality is that a changing global climate poses a significant danger to the poor. Rising sea levels, droughts, intensified storms, decreasing air quality, resulting population displacement, things like this affect the poor the hardest .. we didn't need Katrina to make that clear.
This is not to say that there is no "global warming" lobby, that some of the proponents of action in response to global warming haven't resorted to scare tactics and slandering of legitimate (and illegitimate) doubters, that some may even be trying to use global warming as a way to exert greater control over the populace or as simple political capital. But none of these change the reality of global warming or its significance.
The American Papist has also, as of late, posted a lot about Plan B - the emergency contraceptive - and the Connecticut bishops' response to the new Connecticut law that requires all CT hospitals to administer it to rape victims. The bishops concluded that catholic hospitals could comply with the law because, the manufacturer's literature to the contrary, science has not been able to show that Plan B is abortifacient. The manufacturer's literature says that Plan B will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but the research has not been able to confirm this (or deny it). The American Papist has taken the bishops to task because they have allowed its use when there is not certainty about whether or not Plan B is abortifacient.
And this is the thing that bothers me. He applies his standard of certainty to one situation, but not to another. In the absence of certainty in a standard conservative issue - a traditionally defined pro-life stance - he thinks that we should act despite the doubt. In the absence of certainty in a standard liberal issue - the environment - he thinks we should not act because of the doubt.
Plan B might cause the death of unemplanted children. Global warming might lead to the death and/or suffering of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of the poor. Neither is certain, there is doubt about both of these conclusions. But there are lives at stake, shouldn't we act the same? shouldn't we act with prejudice toward protecting human life? Human life is created in the image of God has in inherent dignity that calls for our respect and protection. Here is where our reasons, based in our Catholic faith, overlap for both opposing the use of Plan B and for acting in response to global warming. That is, if we are responding to our catholic faith and not just our political ideology.
There are really no credible scientists who deny the existence of global warming. The global climate has been on a warming trend. Now, there is legitimate debate to be had as to whether the current warming trend is significantly due to human activity. There are no credible scientists who will say definitively that human activity has *not* contributed to this warming trend, but there are credible scientists who are yet to be convinced. Despite this, the overwhelming consensus is that the evidence sufficiently supports the conclusion that human activity *has* contributed significantly to this warming trend.
Global warming might be a good thing for shippers wanting to use the northwest passage, but the reality is that a changing global climate poses a significant danger to the poor. Rising sea levels, droughts, intensified storms, decreasing air quality, resulting population displacement, things like this affect the poor the hardest .. we didn't need Katrina to make that clear.
This is not to say that there is no "global warming" lobby, that some of the proponents of action in response to global warming haven't resorted to scare tactics and slandering of legitimate (and illegitimate) doubters, that some may even be trying to use global warming as a way to exert greater control over the populace or as simple political capital. But none of these change the reality of global warming or its significance.
The American Papist has also, as of late, posted a lot about Plan B - the emergency contraceptive - and the Connecticut bishops' response to the new Connecticut law that requires all CT hospitals to administer it to rape victims. The bishops concluded that catholic hospitals could comply with the law because, the manufacturer's literature to the contrary, science has not been able to show that Plan B is abortifacient. The manufacturer's literature says that Plan B will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but the research has not been able to confirm this (or deny it). The American Papist has taken the bishops to task because they have allowed its use when there is not certainty about whether or not Plan B is abortifacient.
And this is the thing that bothers me. He applies his standard of certainty to one situation, but not to another. In the absence of certainty in a standard conservative issue - a traditionally defined pro-life stance - he thinks that we should act despite the doubt. In the absence of certainty in a standard liberal issue - the environment - he thinks we should not act because of the doubt.
Plan B might cause the death of unemplanted children. Global warming might lead to the death and/or suffering of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of the poor. Neither is certain, there is doubt about both of these conclusions. But there are lives at stake, shouldn't we act the same? shouldn't we act with prejudice toward protecting human life? Human life is created in the image of God has in inherent dignity that calls for our respect and protection. Here is where our reasons, based in our Catholic faith, overlap for both opposing the use of Plan B and for acting in response to global warming. That is, if we are responding to our catholic faith and not just our political ideology.