Slashdot Mirror
Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics
HughPickens.com writes: The Telegraph reports that as the Vatican forges an alliance with the UN to tackle climate change, skeptics accuse Pope Francis of being deeply ill-informed about global warming. The Pope discussed climate change with Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, who then opened a one-day Vatican conference called "The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development". Organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, SDSN and Religions for Peace, the goal of the conference is to help strengthen the global consensus on the importance of climate change in the context of sustainable development.
But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate. "The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science. He's a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change. "The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age."
It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism," has traveled to Rome to try to influence a pope. "The sideshow envisioned by these organizations will not detract from the deep concern that Pope Francis has for the truth and how it relates to the environment," says Dr. Bernard Brady, Professor and Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas. "Pope Francis will probably follow his predecessor, Benedict XVI, recognizing the interrelatedness of climate change with other moral issues and calling for persons, organizations, communities, nations, and indeed the global community, to reconsider established patterns of behavior."
But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate. "The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science. He's a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change. "The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age."
It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism," has traveled to Rome to try to influence a pope. "The sideshow envisioned by these organizations will not detract from the deep concern that Pope Francis has for the truth and how it relates to the environment," says Dr. Bernard Brady, Professor and Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas. "Pope Francis will probably follow his predecessor, Benedict XVI, recognizing the interrelatedness of climate change with other moral issues and calling for persons, organizations, communities, nations, and indeed the global community, to reconsider established patterns of behavior."
than the climate skeptics like. But maybe they are right, maybe he should just give them spiritual guidance to stop lying for money.
When the Pope is more progressive than you are then you might be an extremist.
If that isn't an oxymorn if I've ever head of one.
Why don't they invest in green energy. Diesel from CO2 is the way? With this much energy they invest in denial, they might as well do something useful.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Should the Pope just excommunicate the liars
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
is to kill all the humans.
And if Anonymous hacked the email accounts of all these skeptics, one would see how they are paid by big-oil companies to misinform the public and lobby against changes that would reduce profit margin of their evil masters. Pure work of Satan!
How is this tech related again?
He worked as a Chemical Technologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_technologist) part of his life, and global warming definitely seems like a moral issue to me.
If he can criticize the deaths caused by poverty or extremism, he can criticize global warming.
Not really, since if there is no man made climate change we at least need to clean up our environment anyway. If on the other hand the skeptics are wrong and they win the argument humanity is up shit creek and it's going to cost a ton of money and lives in the near future.
So, to be on the safe side isn't it better to deal with a possible man made climate change now regardless of it's true or not?
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
"But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate"
While I would have no reason to consider the pope's opinion on a scientific matter to be particularly interesting; doesn't climate change count as a glaringly obvious moral issue under all but the very, very, most optimistic models of its expected effects? I realize such statements are a polite way of saying 'go back to talking about financially irrelevant stuff like homosexuals and the slut menace, and let us do as we wish'; but if the imposition of negative externalities, on a substantial scale, isn't a moral issue, what would be?
might have a serious play here...
The real problem is the several billion too many people on the planet already and that number going up. The Pope needs to tell people to stop pooping out babies all over the place.
He gives advice that many many millions of people will listen to. Isn't it a good thing that people in search of moral guidance hear something about sustainable development and responsible use of resources?
The Pope is just the person we need to settle once and for all the correct interpretation of the scientific evidence. Thank goodness we'll be spared the downward spiral into nearly religious zealotry that climate change debate was headed.
I seem to recall that by definition in Catholicism Popes are considered to be infallible. So these people must just be incorrect - by definition. Either believe your religious myths or don't. Don't try to take some of them as true and others as false.
I don't see why it's a bad thing to consider the ramifications of our actions. Even if we ignore all the evidence of which personally I don't think it's enough to point the blame on us solely. I still don't see the harm in thinking of the future and ending our reliance on a fuel source that will in a generation or two (if we're lucky) be consumed completely.
If the Pope speaks about other social issues why not speak about environmental as well.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Bring back Pope Benedict. At least he was rational. And while we're at it, arm him, and give him troops so he can do something about persecutions of Christians in the Middle East.
Climate Change hysteria is a sin.
Three religions in the GW debate:
True Believers
Deniers
and now
Catholicism
None of these belong in the science or in policy discussions. Unfortunately, that probably leaves about 3 people on the planet that can objectively discuss anthropogenic global warming.
Most people, politicians and I'm sure the Pope don't understand what the real debate on climate change is.
If you would like to know what the real debate is about read this: http://www.tccdebate.com/
You'd be right, except that they want him to agree with their PoV.
It's also a bit of theater, since nature doesn't care what you think.
The lines between communism/socialism and Catholicism/"conservative Christianity" have never been all that sharp to begin with: they both denounce competition and wealth, they both tend to be socially conservative in practice, and both believe that they know the road to salvation for all humanity and it's their job to impose it even on the unwilling. That is probably why those two ideologies hate each other so much.
One of those ideologies has taken over the Democrats, and the other has taken over the Republicans. They agree on the principle of compelling people against their will to do what they believe is good and moral, they simply disagree about who should be in charge and which irrational principles justify that. You and what you want is irrelevant to either of these groups; according to both of them, you are just a "stupid American voter" who needs to be tricked into doing the right thing for his own good (tricking people into doing the "right" thing is, again, a long-standing principle in both ideologies).
http://www.openbible.info/topics/caring_for_the_environment
It's like members of the flat earth society getting top billing on all the news broadcasts.
Pope: "The Earth is round."
Skeptics: "How can you be sure? I paid $100 million to have bunch of people say it's flat!!"
In the end, nothing good ever comes from mixing science and religion. You may agree with what he says today, but will you be okay tomorrow when he comes out attacking the ethics of medical schools teaching doctors how to perform abortions?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Fixed the headline.
This is not just a nitpick. Skeptics are people who reserve judgement or attack bad evidence. Pretending the evidence is bad doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you a denier. As in "holocaust denier" or "evolution denier" or "Sandy Hook shooting denier".
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Skeptic implies the science isnt overwhelmingly concentric on the nature and cause of climate change as a science. What we mean when we say 'skeptic' is overpaid corporate shit-lord who learned grant funding for snake oil 'research' means trading your honda hatchback for a BMW and making your student loans disappear.
Climate change is real. We are causing it. When even the leader of a cult that believes you can eat and drink the body of your dead god comes to realize this, its probably time to pack up your dog and pony show.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Perhaps its just me but telling the Pope to butt out on something that affects the well being of the entire human race because it not his pervue strikes me as a fast way of getting at least 1.2 billion folks and their friends to disagree with you. On some occasions it might be worth it but this isn't one of them.
Strikes me that the size of the foot they are trying to swallow is the size of a very large elephant.
"Attacked".
Really?
C'mon mods, downvote this comment to Hell, you know you want to.
Sounds like the Heartland Institute is getting a lot of Koch lately.
What is those Scientific questions may mean life or death for millions? Or prevent good stewardship of the planet, which is a biblical imperative?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Bible say that Man has dominion over all living things, and even the Earth itself? If God commands us to be the stewards of the Earth, then it seems to be climate change is well within the purview of the Pope.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Putting aside the debate on climate change, I agree that a religious figure has no business opining on science issues (and vice versa). It's irrelevant whether he's on the right or wrong side of an issue--science and religion should never mix.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein 1941
| The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science. He's a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong
Says the paid spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry, which stands to lose trillions if carbon emissions are regulated.
After all, the Catholic Church has always supported bad science. Think of Galileo being punished for his assertions of Copernican theory, or the belief that masturbation causes blindness?
Being for AGW is just par for the course for Catholicism.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
.
However, the rate of warming has increased, with a correlation to the increase of the warming gases.
Is the correlation 100%? No. However, if we wait until the correlation is 100%, then it will be too late to do anything about the problem.
On the other hand, even if global warming were not caused by humans, shouldn't we be trying to mitigate its effects anyway? Should we be planning for the effects of rising sea waters, instead of (as the skeptics want) just do nothing and let the waters rise?
I agree that a religious figure has no business opining on science issues
The pope doesn't opine on science issues. He takes it for a scientific fact, which is perfectly reasonable.
The pope opines on how people can improve their lifestyles so as to minimize the climate impact.
Possibly, but I would prefer if he used his resources to tell people about the importance of eating more fibre.
Seems more accurate.
The Pope himself takes no position on scientific matters. The Pontificial Academy of Sciences does.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Science without religion is science. Religion is blind.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Of course the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age, that's why we call it the Ice Age. duh...
That phase ended about 8000 years ago.
On the other hand, even if global warming were not caused by humans, shouldn't we be trying to mitigate its effects anyway? Should we be planning for the effects of rising sea waters, instead of (as the skeptics want) just do nothing and let the waters rise?
Is that their claim? The seas have risen by something like 200m in the past 13000 years.
I thought their claim was that human-produced CO2 is a minor contributor and that the vapor feedback cycle is limiting, so humans should focus on adaptation to change rather than trying to prevent it since they can't.
Is this a misrepresentation of the claims?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... The Vatican. Because of all the places that conversation should be had, lets have it with some guy walking around in an absurd outfit that thinks invisible super beings talk to him.
Why is this relevant? I mean... why does anyone care one way or the other what the Vatican might say? What is the Vatican's influence at this point? South Americans listen to the pope still I think... that's about it.
The American evangelicals that make the left crazy don't give a shit what the pope says... they're protestants... their entire faith is defined by not giving a shit what the pope says.
And as to Catholics outside of south america... most of them are lapse Catholics that don't especially care what the pope says either.
And if we go with the argument that this is all about getting the south americans on board, they're not signing Kyoto. It won't happen. The business interests in south america will pay this religious stuff the lip service it deserves and then go back to doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place.
Lets talk about relevance here. When was the last time the Pope stopped a war? Last time he in fact changed ANYTHING of global significance? I'm thinking no pope has really made much of an impact for about 500 years.
So... Who gives a shit what the pope thinks? I say that with all due respect to the pope and I have no animosity towards his religion. But climate change isn't going to do anything for the catholic faith. No one is converting to Catholicism or donating to the Vatican or supporting Christianity because of the pope's position on climate change.
There are Christians in the middle east and Africa getting genocided as we speak. No one cares about the christians in the middle east getting killed. No one cares about the christians in Egypt and Somalia etc getting killed. No one cares. These people are writing messages in English BEGGING for help and then getting the media to take pictures of them. No one is coming. If no one cares enough to help people getting genocided, then exactly what is the pope's position on climate change going to do?
Nothing. This is a non-issue. Everyone should just ignore it. It is of no relevance.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
yes, and correlation is not causation. There is more evidence to link autism to vaccines and pesticides than there is to link "global warming" to human activity.
I am very surprised that people who claim to be scientific thinkers support this nonsense. I am so surprised in fact, that I smell a gatekeeper and some shills.... I wonder if the company that own Dice is invested in carbon exchanges.
But hey, what do I know about psyops and critical thinking. FYI grammar dbags, I'm not writing a paper for a journal here.
Just so you know, the money is behind "climate change". It is very lucrative to charge people for carbon emissions AKA breathing.
I won't say that I'm smarter than you, but well, your know.......
Good thing we don't have to go to Soros for information on AGW.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then prove it.
The Pope has always had access to excellent advice from more-or-less anyone he wants (invitations to join the Pontifical Academy of Sciences are rarely turned down, and are by no means restricted to Catholic men). I may or may not agree with him, but I would never assume that he is being mislead by, or even has to rely on, outside advisors.
What to do or not do about climate change is a moral issue, and therefore a religious issue. Science doesn't dictate human actions; it only describes consequences of actions. But obviously consequences should affect decisions.
If there are moral decisions to made over climate change, then religious leaders are obligated to look into the science behind it to make sure they have the base facts correct.
Table-ized A.I.
. However, if we wait until the correlation is 100%, then it will be too late to do anything about the problem.
How do you know? Did you read it on the internet?
Reducing our CO2 output to zero at this time would be costly with today's technology, if it's even possible.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Bring back Pope Benedict. At least he was rational. And while we're at it, arm him, and give him troops so he can do something about persecutions of Christians in the Middle East.
You want the pedophile shuffler back? Really?
His resignation was timed to deflect attention from that issue, coming as it was the very week HBO's documentary linking him (and his soon-to-be-sainted predecessor) directly to the pedophile scandals in the US, Ireland, and elsewhere came out.
And it worked. Instead of public outcry at the documented link between the then-reigning popes and the pedophile coverup, everyone was wetting their pants over a shiny new pope who wasn't to the right of Genghis Khan.
That said, it takes a really hardcore right-wingnut to want Ratzinger back.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
We have already decided to allow the earth to warm up, the Anti Climate Change lobby is just in denial of that fact. Humanity has made the decision that it is too expensive in terms of wealth, health and population to reverse or arrest climate change, we will just have to deal with the problems it brings going forward. Climate change has been a side effect of our rapid growth and development, but we are not going to go bak to the middle ages, just so world temperatures are just what some people think they ought to be. Live with it.
He is in charge of his followers' spiritual well-being, which would be tested to the extreme should they be subjected to famine, loss of their homes, pestilence, and so on. The fact he's on the side of science and attempting to help billions of people should be applauded, not condemned.
Seems like a strawman BS argument. Creating an associative link between the holocaust and climate change is a master stroke of propaganda; It's too bad you are just parroting the mainstream media talking points, and thus cannot take credit for such clever insidious rhetoric.
If our religious leaders don't promote the moral high ground then what are they there for?
The four most populous countries use the death penalty and in total over 50% of the world population lives in nations where state aurhorized executions occur. Capital punishment is not unusual even among the worlds economic leaders. There are many good arguments against capital punishment but this isn't one. Instead cite 4% of those executed being innocent or the higher cost relative to incarceration.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The real issue is the morality of climate change. The pope says the poor will bear the brunt of a warmer planet.
But the real thing the poor in the third world needs are cheap access to energy. This is what Indian and China are using to lift billions out of poverty, coal mostly.
You can say this pollutes, but it is better than heating your yurt or cooking with smokey dung in your kitchen.
The earth has not warmed significantly in the past 18 years depending on which data series you look at. (despite rising CO2, the models are diverging farther from reality every year) The ones that still show warming are the heavily "adjusted" ones. A few degrees won't hurt as much as bone crushing poverty as cold weather kills more than hot weather.
Agnostics often make the argument that believing in God is the safe option, that way be true, but what a terrible waste of resources. And what if a real God actually punishes belief?
and we clean things up, we've depleted some money and gained a cleaner environment. If the deniers are wrong and we let things go past a tipping point, we've saved money and depleted the environment. Last I checked it was easier to create wealth than it was to create water, air and life.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I am as scared as religious environmentalism as I am of any religious tinged political issue.
I find it hilarious that the one "leading climate change skeptic" they name is Christopher Monckton who is basically a climate change denial kook. The Telegraph seems to have an obsession for climate change denial and hosts columns from two other prominent denialists - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker.
Refuseniks attack people who don't agree with them. More news at 10.
My favorite liberal/"progressive" echo chamber since 1999.
The science is settled. Because that's what science means, right. Idiots.
Consensus reality is best reality.
âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â
Some Einstein guy said that about a year before he died, back in 1954.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
"...the Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age."
I should set a climate denialist's house on fire at midday and tell them that it's not my fault, it's been warming since sunrise!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Rhetoric is not some magical thing owned by only one group. The same types of arguments to sway emotion and ignore information harming your argument have been around for at least 2,600 years. Socrates hated the Sophists because they were masters of manipulation, and cared nothing for truth and honesty.
Why do you think that we have named fallacies, which very few people learn? Oh.. because if people know to look for them the Sophistry begins to fail.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Aren't we tiring of the over-sensationalistic verbiage yet? Did they mob they guy and hit him with clubs and kick him ? Beat him up? Isn't "attacked" over the top? ..or of course, that's the point. Everything these days is an "attack"; we see headlines like "Bush *slams* Obama, or "Obama *destroys* Boehner", when it was really nothing like that.. it's really getting kind of 3rd grade mentality, yellow journalism is enjoying quite the resurgence.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Climate has 'changed' since before humans were on this planet and will continue to change regardless of what we do with our current level of technology.
People have died since the beginning of time as well, does that mean we can no longer investigate murders and accidents? I wonder why you can not see how idiotic your argument is..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You take a liquid that is under the surface, burn that liquid and the by product is heat. You store that heat in the atmosphere. And that heat does not rise the temperature of the atmosphere.
So, it is a fire that generate heat that does not increase the temperature of anything. I see a math and physics evidence there.
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
... the day you make it illegal for billionaires to use air conditioning.
"The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science."
Isn't he -- for Catholics -- the authority on literally everything?
"We need our opiate to manipulate the masses! It is hard enough to get ordinary people to accept self-destructive falsehoods when we package them with a message that the left is anti-religion. How can we sell our bullshit if we lose the church?!?" - Heartland Institute
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This doesn't read to me that he is being "attacked".
Rather just given another view. Those who are believers will know he has the grace of GOD on his side and will make the correct choice. After all everything always works out because its gods plan. Who are they to question GODS plan to have the Pope full informed?
Maybe the Pope knows exactly how much of Global warming is Man Made global warming and how much tax money it will take to reverse the warming that's been happening since the last ice age.
[font size=0.001]Character of[/font] Pope Assassinated by Climate Change Deniers!
"Attacked" in a headline implies battery or at least assault. Maybe some verbal $&%# spewing. Not a polite "we believe the pope is mistaken".
> "The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science"
NEITHER ARE THAT GROUP OF SHILLS FROM YOUR "INSTITUTE" WHO ARE DENYING THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS ON THE SUBJECT.
Dear filter: I know caps is like yelling. That's why I used it. It conveys the emotion.
Yes, there needs to be a separation of climate-change-deniers from climate-change-root-cause-skeptics. (Does this distinction exist?) The latter group can still work on answers to the question, "Now what do we do?"
So they came after the pope with broken glass bottles and baseball bats?
It seems like when believers reproof skeptics, they're "setting them straight" or "persuading" them. When it's the other way around, the skeptics "attack" and "excoriate."
Climate deniers calling out the pope for embracing science too much?
doubtless if he agreed with them, the deniers would all stand by his holy authority over all Creation, but when his holiness disagrees with them the deniers see fit to stuff him back into his little religious box 'cause this is about SCIENCE!
Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.
Pope John Paul II
Law only exists because enough people believe in it. If enough people stop believing in it, it absolutely goes away.
And yet, if most people believe in it, but only a few people don't, it becomes a very harsh reality for those few people.
So....is law part of reality or not, by your definition?
I fail to see how being a religious figure and a scientific figure are mutually exclusive. I think George Lemaitre would disagree.
I get GPs point, but believe they asked the wrong question. The question should have been, "What do Democrats DO differently than Republicans?" The answer to that is where people say "nothing" and see that there is no difference between the parties.
Example: Barack Obama claiming "I want peace in the Middle East" is not the same thing as him continuing and extending bombing, drone campaigns, funding and arming rebels, and toppling governments that "The US does not like"
His _actions_ are not different from GW Bush in terms of actual "peace". I don't count any politicians speeches as their actions, I count their actions as their actions.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's a bit 'pot calling kettle' of these skeptics. The generally have no proper scientific understanding, yet demand to be heard regardless. Then when someone in a position of influence offers a different point of view, but is not a professional scientist, they demand that the other person 'stops talking about science and goes back to their day job' or something like that.
This has the ring of deliberate lies.
Get bent.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Regardless of whether you believe that mankind has had a pivotal role in global warming or not, we as the dominant species on planet Earth must be prepared to deal with the consequences. There is a strong moral imperative to look out into the future and begin planning for what we will do with the people who will be displaced by rising sea levels, encroaching deserts or changes to regional growing seasons and crop yields. If the Pope, as the leader of a major world religion, didn't speak out about this, then we would have to question why.
will sell \destroy anything for a dollar!
The post you are responding to said nothing about the holocaust.
Hmmm...CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases. Pump lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Watch temperature increase. Reference: see Venus. Let's know how the trip went.
I so want to ask the Koch Bros "You Mad Bro's???"
It was corporate interests that sold Americans on the idea that Capitalism went hand in hand with Christianity. I love the irony of Christianity arguing back. (It isn't just the pope, there have been some fundamentalist groups making the same basic argument recently).
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Could please point out the lies?
Sorry, but if you acknowledge a pope's authority on anything, then it must necessarily be unlimited authority. The whole point of popeness is that he has privileged mystical knowledge and contact that you don't, so it's absurd to say that you are personally aware of the content of that knowledge. Whenever you do that, you're violating the premise.
If I tell you that Yog-Sothoth has revealed to me, knowledge of the word to bring upp ye legions from underneathe, you can call bullshit on me. That's totally cool (and I'm pleased that when I take over the world, you will be caught so unprepared). But if, instead, you accept my claim of successful sorcery but then later refute my next claim (that Yog-Sothoth has also revealed to me, knowledge that Comcast is involved in possibly-illegal uncompetitive behavior), you don't get to call bullshit. (Not unless you are claiming to be Yog-Sothoth yourself, or you're claming to have MitMed my communications with The Beyond-One.)
So what's it going to be? Are you now willing to accept that the pope's opinion on this matter is the infallible word of God?
No? Fair enough. (That's actually the correct position. You're right that he's not an authority on the matter; he's just some dude who, perhaps due to his personal experiences, has taken sides on that apparnetly controversial and highly-disputed subject of .. uh .. whether or not thermometers work.)
But with that, you also need to shut the fuck up with the complete bullshit about the pope being some kind of moral authority. He's just some dude who got elected CEO.
Either take a common sense position or take a paranormal position, but when you try to mix them together EVERYONE can spot your bullshit. The mystics know you're full of shit, and the realists know you're full of shit. So just who the fuck do you think you're impressing?
Just keep in mind the Church of the Vatican and its Pope convicted Galileo of heresy of supporting heliocentrism as opposed to "God's" geocentrism and was placed under house arrest for the remaining years of his life. See Wikipedia for a synopsis.
A way to bring all this current ridiculousness of the Vatican and the UN to a screeching halt is to get Title IX violations on Bon Ki-Moon and de-thrown him from the UN (think of the Indian Railroad engineer who was the Pontiff of the IPCC until he harassed a female employee and is now in hiding in a hospital looking for a benefactor like the Ecuadorian Embassy to claim sanctuary before the trial gets going).
Ha ha
Then is he ready to bless our new reactor fleet?
There is that whole bit about "I give this world to you, with stewardship and dominion over it", etc etc.
Would be rather rude to trash God's gift of creation.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The "ring of deliberate lies"? Is that some kind of divination skill you're practicing? Or are you just employing *feeelings* instead of science?
Let's be clear, the OP stated 3 facts stated above:
1) Climate has never not been changing since the formation of the Earth. TRUE
2) The data for anthropogenic warming is weak. TRUE
3) Those who disagree with it are ex-communicated from the scientific community. TRUE
Please tell us exactly which one of those has said mystical "ring" of deliberate lies, and why.
There is a growing movement amongst many Christians around the issue of environmentalism. Creation Care is a serious matter for many evangelicals and that the Pope is adding some clout to the matter is a really good thing. Even if man-made global warming wasn't real, the practical measures being recommended by many are good ideas in and of themselves: diversified power sources, lower pollution outputs, etc.
Well let's see here, California mountain snowpack is 5% of normal levels (where much of the drinking water comes from besides. Some argue, ITS ALL POLITICS! Oh c'mon you guys (or "alpha hotels"), in a perfect world we'd be debating how to mitigate this situation. There are other places in the world that are undergoing climate change and like California we are seeing it in person. Why are there deniers? We can debate if it is human caused (I think so as CO2 levels are much higher that can tip climatic balance). I wonder if Mayans debated politics including human sacrifices rather than organize a migration or deal with crops needing less water?
mfwright@batnet.com
"Climate has always changed!" Yes, for a reason. Not magical. Not gaia wanting a change of clohtes. For a reason. CO2 being one. CO2 we are producing now at a massive rate.
It's up to you to show that unlike any time before, this increase of CO2 won't cause ~3C per doubling of CO2 warming.
"The question is, how much of it is man-made?" More than 100% of the current warming is due to us. Because the sun is dipping down and getting cooler and our orbital forcing is going down again.
"THAT is the part that you leave out." Nope, you just want someone to prove all over again what's in the IPCC reports. Go see for yourself, stop demanding people repost the entire fucking thing because you want them not to bother telling you you're wrong.
http://www.ipcc.ch
So, the deniers say either a) the world isn't warming, or b) it is, but human activity has nothing to do with it. Ok, nothing to see here. What's so fucking huge that they have to get the Pope on board?
Is all this just about sticking-it to "scientists" and know-it-all Al Gore types? What's so bad if Climate Change is a real thing? People might do something they otherwise wouldn't do, like invest in clean energy? cut down emissions? close down heavy-polluters? stuff we ought to be doing anyway??? Would any of the things we would do in response to Climate Change be, actually, bad for anyone (besides the wealthy asshats neck-deep in coal and oil)?
I wanna know what climate deniers get out of all this, besides a free trip to Rome.
Who gives a shit how it got there before us. We're putting it there now. YOU prove that our CO2 doesn't do what natural CO2 does.
There are a lot of "skeptics" who are really motivated by their own special interests, like not wanting reduction in coal mining to impact their home state's economy. They are set up to be biased. But a lot of skeptics are true believers that climate science is some kind of grand conspiracy. Now with those people, I don't really know what their motivation is for being skeptics, because they're not scientists. They just repeat some stuff they've been told by other people that sounds plausible to them. But anyhow, this is the problem we face. Most of the skeptics are not "lying." They are simply misinformed.
Fine, I'll bite. It's almost a fair question, your flamebait addendum aside. You're European, I'd no more expect you to be paying close attention to U.S. domestic policy than you would expect me to understand the issues in parliamentary elections in the various EU member states, or have any idea why (for example) Jobbik, the National Front Party, Syriza, Svoboda and the Scottish National Party have been much in the news this year. Oh, wait...
Generally, Democrats (Dems) and Republicans (Reps) are deeply divided over whether issues such as poverty and imbalances in negotiating power in various types of markets allow the government to be an effective (or superior) actor in response. Some concrete examples of this and other divisions:
Whether, in a historically low-interest-rate borrowing environment, to pursue debt-funded infrastructure investment (Dems) or austerity led by cuts to programs supporting the poor (Reps; recent large cuts to SNAP, also called "food stamps", were an impressively cruel touch, though not as large as the Rep-led House wanted).
Whether climate change (1) is occurring, (2) is significantly affected by human activity and (3) whether we should do anything about it. Dems for (see recent major rulemaking by the EPA), Reps against (see recent lawsuits and expected attempts to override the EPA through legislation).
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed without a single Rep vote, has increased health insurance enrollment in the U.S. by about 15 million people and drastically reduced the rate of increase in total U.S. medical services cost. Reps want to repeal it, have no clear plan to replace it, and refuse to expand Medicaid (low-income insurance) in most states whose legislatures they control (even though U.S. law makes it more expensive to public funds not to extend Medicare - see, e.g., EMTALA).
The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis without any Rep votes, contains provisions to prevent banks from using deposits to trade on the banks' own accounts, other provisions to make a repeat of 2008 less likely, and to create several administrative entities including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Reps and their major donors frequently suggest Dodd-Frank should be heavily weakened or repealed.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which Reps have tried hard to emasculate, is doing yeoman work making various types of financial instruments (e.g., mortgages, credit cards and student loans) fairer.
Whether the over 11 million currently resident undocumented immigrants should be integrated into U.S. society (Dems), or either deported or made a separate reduced-rights resident class (Reps). Our Democrat president has issued an executive order, currently stayed by a Texas judge (the stay is being appealed), heavily limiting Federal deportation of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants. Reps have called this tyrrany.
And that's just a few of the quickly-relatable domestic headline issues that have vast impact on individuals and markets. It's fashionable in some quarters to pretend that Democrats and Republicans are equally corporate-beholden faceless, heartless monoliths. This is a false equivalence and an oversimplification. Educate yourself.
| In the whole recorded history of the planet, CO2 *follows* the heat patterns
Except for the very important exception of now, when humans have dug up fossil fuels and burnt them in a mechanism never previously active in geological history. We have CO2 first, and now the heat's coming.
If something different is happening now, the results may be different.
The causal mechanism from CO2 to temperature is not derived from historical correlations but direct quantitative observation and physical experiments. The importance of the paleoclimate is that there may be natural feedforwards in which extra heat releases additional CO2 which would increase heat more still.
Exactly! And just as predicted by those pesky laws of physics, the climate was, until modern period, slowly cooling from about 6000 BC to now as the Milankovitch cycle of orbital forcing proceeds on its predicted path. It takes a Milankovitch peak to get out of the Ice Age.
Until humans started releasing greenhouse gases in mass, and that is now causing much more rapid warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
I don't get why the Pope is even relevant to the conversation. The Vatican has absolutely no power to implement policy in these matters, their opinions on the issue - good or bad - shouldn't have any sway on anything.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
"attacked" indeed. So the Pope was "attacked"?
Oh, you mean "heard some words that he didn't agree with". Oh, the humanity!
That's the same as being "attacked", isn't it! Well it sure is if you're an insane Left wing 'climate change' bullshitter.
Oh, did you mean "Catastrophic man-made global warming"? Then why didn't you say so?
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
"The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science."
Ok, but you as the Heartland Institute purposefully ignore all the authorities on climate science to push a financial agenda over a global one, so, what's your point again?
they dont sound like climate change skeptics (guy said the earth has been warming since the ice age), theyre agw skeptics.
but eh, who's for terms?
..attack the Pope and look more foolish then ever.
dumbfuck: venus would fry with or without CO2. no magnetic field. much too close to tbe sun. Mars is freezing cold and the atmosphere is nearly 100% CO2.
I think we should just call the 'Heretics', because then we could just burn them. Because that is what you do with heretics, right?
Of course, that would be a bad idea in practice, as it would just release more greenhouse gasses...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The libertarians (among others) are very, very scared of having an honest discussion about those issues, which is why they continually attempt to deny that climate change exists or has an anthropogenic cause. .
That is a interesting generalization, why would a libertarian in particular have a problem with the topic? Is there something in the secret libertarian manual that says that they cannot be honest about global climate change?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Please tell us who exactly who was "pumping" all that CO2 and Methane into Earth's atmosphere back when CO2 levels were higher and temperatures were much warmer?
Volcanoes
Nothing could be better for Pope Francis's credibility and demonstrate better that he is raising valid points than being attacked by climate change so-called skeptics.
Seriously? At this point in time, you are going against all current peer reviewed science on this? You aren't a skeptic. You're a denier. And/or paid shills and/or liars.
I'm really tired of hearing and reading of people who disbelieve the evidence of climate change as "skeptics". A skeptic is someone who needs evidence in order to believe something is true. These people have ample evidence that climate change is true but they stubbornly refuse to accept it. They aren't skeptics, they are climate change deniers.
People often take that quote out of context. In context, Einstein was talking about "religion" in the sense of man's curiosity and desire to know the truth, he wasn't talking about the Catholic Church, etc.
Einstein wrote that in support of the "overlapping magisteria" idea that any knowledge science gains can't be in legitimate conflict with religion, if religion is about finding truth and understanding.
The repeated drum beast of the hottest years in the record for the 21st century are useless.
It is like a 30 year old man says he is the tallest he has ever been in his life for the past 9 years.
Yet this does not prove he is getting taller.
Likewise the hottest years do not prove it is getting warmer as the alarmist models predict.
And it says nothing about the cause , if humans have anything to do with it.
Considering that at the root, abortion is murder, I would have no problem with him doing that.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
| Please tell us exactly which one of those has said mystical "ring" of deliberate lies, and why.
| 2) The data for anthropogenic warming is weak. TRUE
This one. It's a deliberate lie.
There has been a very large increase in greenhouse gases in the industrial period. It is from fossil fuel mining and burning. This has caused changes infrared emissivity in the atmosphere---this is a measured fact, that the atmosphere is shining more in infrared. It is physically impossible for the climate not to warm.
Extensive data, geological and biological, show this is what has happened.
All other plausible non-anthropogenic mechanisms have been investigated and do not explain the observed data. Every aspect has been investigated every which way for decades.
| 3) Those who disagree with it are ex-communicated from the scientific community. TRUE
At some point, which is about now, they don't have good arguments or data. When they try, their arguments are quickly refuted. It now appears that they are willfully incompetent and motivated by achieving a non-result instead of actual scientific inquiry.
Particle physicists who disagree with conservation of relativistic momentum are similarly "ex-communicated" as they have nothing productive to add.
A very poor website with lots of propaganda.
WUWT has shown how skepticalscience deletes comments that it finds inconvenient, edits blog posts without any notice that they have been changed.
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
The pope is a sexual tyranosaur compared to those limp wristed slack jawed faggots at the Fartland institute. I ain't got time to bleed for them.
In other news, "Climate Change Skeptics Reveal Selves As Opportunistic Self Promoting Media Grubbing Asshats".
The Pope has great moral Authority? Says who? Just because he's old, rich, and prays doesn't mean he knows right from wrong.
Just ask them how they feel about Elon Musk - his companies are manufacturing and installing solar panels, batteries, and electric cars, and he's worth billions personally.
It's all good until one of those skeptics use a small pistol or a knife to attack the Pope, or try to murder the king of Belgium. (Thank You distant relative, for this opportunity for being in a public Purgatory for the duration of this message.)
Well-said and I agree completely. I wish that I had mod points to award you.
All other plausible non-anthropogenic mechanisms have been investigated and do not explain the observed data. Every aspect has been investigated every which way for decades.
Claiming data and mechanisms are not the same as providing data and mechanism.
You have just claimed, not provided, thus hinting that you are wrong.
... as a truth teller in a historic context. Gallileo Gallilei, anyone? It took them several hundred years to acknowledge that Gallileo was right and they were wrong.
On matters climate change, what people refuse to recognize is that the earth's climate has been changing forever, and will continue to do so, with or without humans.
The current fight is about whether there is any man made influence on the clinate, and if yes, whether that is good or bad. And, if deemed bad, who has the auhority to tell everyone else what to do about it. In other words, it's just another power struggle, with one side feeling particularly proud of themselves because, hey, "we're the good guys".
Like Ted Cruz threatened (yes, thinly veiled) NASA Director Charles Bolden.
Tedder called Maj-Gen (RET) Bolden with replacement for directing entirely too much of NASA's science work TOWARD EARTH instead of Outer Space.
C'mon! Threaten the Pope! Tell Francis I he can be replaced with a more pliant Archbishop!
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 15 and 18+ years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
The IPCC climate modelers said there would not be "a 15 year period with rising CO2 and temperature not following" and they added that they had a "95% confidence" in that statement. Santer et al said 17 years.
So the idea that CO2 controls the climate has been proven wrong by empirical evidence.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 2 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still
accurate.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Too bad the pope didn't get his facts straight.
Even if you believe that humans don't play a part in Climate Change or are on the fence, are you willing to bet your life and the lives of your great great great grandchildren on it?
If there's even the slightest chance that we can slow climate change by decreasing emmisions, growing more plant life to store carbon, etc. then we should do it. The worst that can happen is we spend a ton of money and end up with cleaner air in our mega-cities, cleaner and more plentiful fresh water, and an abundance of trees and other plantlike and more animals walking/swimming the planet. This would allow us to support a growing population.
If we work together we can turn the worlds desserts green again, store carbon, increase natural habitats for animals. Don't believe me? Watch this with an open mind...
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en#
"British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality..."
I think of saving the planet and the humans that inhabit it as well within the Pope's right to speak to it as "matters of morality".
Funny how some 'skeptics' seem to always want to shut down people with a view different than their own and by using invalid arguments.
If their arguments aren't valid, then how can their viewpoint be?
Follow the money as they say.
Presumably, you mean "Climate-Change Heathens".
"If there is one thing that the Roman Catholic Church knows, it's science"
Disappointing - I expected two yobs in a three-wheel delivery truck to knock him down in the street, then cosh him. A la the Costa-Gavras movie Z. Silkwood?
There has _got_ to be a crime family associated with the worldwide Thugs-for-Hire movement: Punks from out of town to light up Baltimore, quasi-intellectual diss the Pope on global warming, pimply-faced kids throwing cigarette butts on my lawn . . .
Wish I'd been in since the beginning - I'd have $100 today, easy.
Umm, Obama specifically funded building infrastructure. Try again. And really, giving women, blacks, and gays rights was common in the Bronze Age? Again, try again- with more feeling this time
see http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Religions are ~2000 years old;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Humans are ~200,000 years old;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
Every religion claims Earth is Flat;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
If you believe that some thinking being actively and purposefully constructed the Earth, it isn't that much of a real leap to presume they might not like us trashing the place...
Also he could really just play the Pope card. He is the voice of God on Earth right?
"I was recently talking to God just the other day and he mentioned to me that as it turns out Climate Change is real, and that we are the ones causing it! So there!"
Is it a coincidence that Chicago is among the farthest from any coastal shoreline? If you're a member of the Heartland Institute and you aren't filled with self-loathing you're a !@#$ing sociopath.
I've got an idea: Lets fight over Who, What, When, Where and How Climate is or is not a problem. We're all in this boat together as it drifts towards (or away ?) from the falls. Make no mistake. The falls are REAL.