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."
Err, the church has always been learned, in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks. If you're thinking of Galileo, the church knew he was correct but they didn't think that the populace should be exposed to it without preparation, that might have been very arrogant, but it hardly shows a lack of scientific knowledge by the Pope.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
And Jesuits have done more than a little bit to advance scientific understanding, especially in the earth sciences, but also in just about every field you can imagine. It's surprising, the scientific disciplines where you find Jesuits doing important work.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually, the Big Bang theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest.
Ahhh.... nope.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You're full of shit
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Um... Climate Change?
Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say:
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...
Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says:
"Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...
Here is what the last Rep President had to say:
" In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way.""
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it:
" Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz."
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
Wherever You Go, There You Are
"personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land." Well that settles it folks! Briniel stepped outside and everything seemed alright. We can all go home now and keep burning that oil and pumping out that CO2. Oh wait, I just found this. Well nuts......sorry Briniel. It seems a few people traveled a bit further from their land and discovered that things aren't so cozy and calm. http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
NASA admits the warming since 1998 is NOT statically significant
You're the one who's cherry picking, because 1998 was a 2-sigma outlier when it happened. The same 1998 temperature is now the norm.
And then Dr Banjo demanded the next missing link...
Seriously, that is about the most dishonest attempt at raising the bar that I have seen lately, at least outside of the anti-Evolution lobby
I demonstrate what the leaders of each party have been saying for the past 15 years, and what the likely candidates for the next four years have to say, and you just want to start a fishing expedition to attempt to dilute the results
OK, What did the prior Dem president have to say?
Oh, that's right President Bill Clinton, and his VP were ADAMANT supporters of climate change, and enacted regulations to control carbon emissions, which the following republican President Bush and his VP (both with careers in fossil fuels) rolled back immediately
But heck, let's cast the net a little wider, eh?
The prior Rep President George H W Bush, lots of talk during the campaign, little actual action:
" Bush charted a significantly less-ambitious path on climate change than environmentalists had hoped. The United States did not host a global warming conference in 1988, despite proposals put forth by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William. As calls mounted for Bush to keep his campaign promises on global warming, White House officials went on the offensive against critics of the president. Spokesman Marlon Fitzwater repeatedly warned of potentially drastic consequences for the U.S. economy posed by proposed solutions to global warming, such as a carbon tax or restrictions on coal-fired power plants. Fitzwater’s comments reflected a growing tendency within the Bush administration to see the economic costs of an aggressive stance on global warming as too high for comfort. "
http://what-when-how.com/globa...
Or any of the other rep candidates for 2016
Rand Paul:
"Paul said the earth goes through periods of time when the climate changes, but he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why.” He threw in some environmentalist-bashing: “The earth’s 4.5 billion years old, and you’re going to say that we had four hurricanes and so it proves a theory?"
Bobby Jindal:
"has been a soloist in the “Drill, baby drill!” chorus. In a 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed advocating for more production of fossil fuels, Jindal wrote that Obama “must put energy prices and energy independence ahead of zealous adherence to left-wing environmental theory.”"
Chris Christie:
"While the NJ DEP contends there is no political motivation to its silence on the potential connection between global warming and Sandy, it is clear that Christie has made a decision not to link Sandy, the signature moment of his tenure, to climate change."
Scott Walker:
"He signed a “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change and has been a keynote speaker at the climate-denying Heartland Institute."
Jeb Bush:
"“It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view.”"
notice a trend Dr Banjo?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
"1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited."
Matters on the type of fuel you're talking about. The US has coal reserves for hundreds of years. Even NG and Crude reserves to last a loooooong time, but they will continue to cost more and more to extract and refine.
"2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us."
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves. The vast majority of the rest is bought from Mexico and Canada. The largest of the insignificant provider nations is Venezuela. The amount of oil we buy from countries that, "Do not like us", is insignificant.
"3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing."
Our interest in Middle Eastern oil is due to the lack of oil reserves in western Europe. Even without any US demand on Middle Eastern oil, the US will have a continued interest in the region until Western Europe transitions off of crude.
"More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change. So, what is the problem?"
This is really the crux of it. So let's say that the Pope/Scientists are wrong. There is no global warming and any investment in improving vehicle efficiency, air quality, and use of renewable is a waste of economic output. Well, we still get more efficient vehicles, better air quality, and a bunch of jobs. So, no big loss.
On the other hand, say the Pope/Scientists are right, but we do nothing. We are at risk of creating a catastrophic level event that would dramatically alter life on the planet, and could result in the death of billions of people.
So option A, we possibly lose a percent or two off of economic growth. Option B, we die, and the economy no longer matters.
As you said, "So, what is the problem?"
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
President Bill Clinton placed limits on CO2 and mercury emissions on Coal power plants and regulations that any new plant that were built include scrubbers to eliminate those products
President George W Bush rolled those regulations back in the first year of his Presidency
Since you seem intent to draw this far afield, I would take particular notice of President Obama NOT shoving a few hundred thousand more troops into the middle east while removing most of the existing troops as a valid difference between him and the prior rep President who seemed to have a fetish for 'boots on the ground', a gentle euphemism for getting US troops killed
Wherever You Go, There You Are
The current incarnation of the Democratic party, with the big business centrists aka "New Democrats" holding the most sway, may not be the most ideal flavor (and I look very forward to Sanders and Warren pulling the party leftward back where the party should be in the next cycle).
But they are still a damned sight better than pretty much anything the Republicans have to offer, where your choices are between the shit sandwich establishment, and the diarrhea buffet of the tea party.
Both may be in bed with Wall Street, and prone to expanding the surveillence state and engaging in foreign adventures.
But only one wants to eliminate the entire "welfare state" (sorry joke that it is in this nation), and roll the clock back to the pre-1930s.
Only one is standing there in the building building and saying "I don't smell any smoke" as they ignore all the science and data pointing to global warming.
Only one is trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, and advocates legislating according to their particular sky fairy.
Only one is trying to sell the idea that we dont need any more equality, everything is just fine, or that equal rights are "special rights".
Really, this entire notion that there is no difference between them is the most ignorant pile of bullshit that keeps getting perpetuated.
There are hundreds of issues, and to look at just the two or three you care about and say "nah they're the same", while ignoring everything else is idiotic.
So yeah, there's a difference.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I do not see compelling evidence that slashing CO2 is a good course
The ocean hates you.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
"Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year."
But this seems the worst info to me:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-...
"Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 147 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2003, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 258 billion metric tons per year. "
Approaching half a trillion tons of ice *per year* being melted seems an astounding amount.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The US has coal reserves for hundreds of years
Keep in mind that the mining started with the really good anthracite coal, and has been moved steadily to lesser and lesser grades, with less energy per ton. If you look at the produced energy from coal, the US hit the peak back in 1998.
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves
This tertiary oil boom in the US, due to fracking, is a very temporary stopgap. Fracked wells have an incredibly steep decline rate, which means that after just a few years, the well stops producing in useful quantities, and you have to drill new ones. Pretty soon, they're going to run out of places to drill, especially the really good places where they started. The story for natural gas is similar.
No he's correct, James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, stepped outside of his house in Oklahoma and observed, get this, snow. He was able to conclude on the basis of this observation that there was no global warming and certainly no human induce global warming.
He was also able to observe no decrease in the Ogallala aquafier level so Oklahoma will have water until the End-O-Times. And he was able to observe that the Moon has kept a steady distance from the Earth in his lifetime, so it will be there until the End-O-Times (scientists dispute this saying it moves away about 1.5 inches a year). And that he could see no relationship between the Great Apes and Man, so there is no evolution, and it has been this way since the Beginning-O-Times.
You should be proud to have such a scholar as head the Senate Committee.
they're around but they are the exception not the rule.
Look to the party platforms.
This is the GOP platform on the environment:
( https://www.gop.com/platform/a... )
rotecting Our Environment (Top)
The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago. Efforts to reduce pollution, encourage recycling, educate the public, and avoid ecological degradation have been a success. To ensure their continued support by the American people, however, we need a dramatic change in the attitude of officials in Washington, a shift from a job-killing punitive mentality to a spirit of cooperation with producers, landowners, and the public. An important factor is full transparency in development of the data and modeling that drive regulations. Legislation to restore the authority of States in environmental protection is essential. We encourage the use of agricultural best management practices among the States to reduce pollution.
Note the claim that everything is better now, that efforts have been a success, while ignoring that is regulations from the EPA and its state kin that are responsible for that success, while at the same claiming the EPA is a threat to the country.
Our Republican Party’s Commitment to Conservation (Top)
Conservation is a conservative value. As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success. A policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run. Also, public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands.
Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research.
-Note the admonishment that it's a moral imperative from God to maintain good stewardship, again reinforcing that this is a religuous directive in the eyes of the party.
-Note the implication that scientists are corrupt and not telling the truth, and that truth must restored and revealed.
Private Stewardship of the Environment (Top)
Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Um... Climate Change?
Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013" https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...
Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says: "Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”" http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...
Here is what the last Rep President had to say: " In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way."" http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it: " Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz." http://politicalticker.blogs.c...
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
I Think that just goes to show that they target different members of the population, not that they have real meaningfully different agendas. They almost always vote the same on things like domestic spying, invading foreign countries, etc. The only thing they really fight over is how to slice the pie.
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.
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves. The vast majority of the rest is bought from Mexico and Canada. The largest of the insignificant provider nations is Venezuela. The amount of oil we buy from countries that, "Do not like us", is insignificant.
The major supplier is in fact Canada. Saudi Arabia and Mexico are essentially tied for second, followed by Venezuela, then countries like Ecuador, Colombia, and Russia. Imports from Canada and the Persian Gulf countries account for a little over half of our total imports.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pe...
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes, but there are degrees of danger. I'll agree that it's probably too late to avoid ocean acidification, considerable sea level rise, and Arctic meltdown. Antarctic meltdown is probably still partially avoidable, though it's uncertain how much melting is already committed to.
But if we *don't* start addressing the problem seriously now, total Antarctic melting will happen. That means a sea level rise in at least the meters category, if not the dekameters. If we were to seriously address the problem starting today we could probably hold the sea level rise to the decimeter range. So it's not too late to avoid some of the problems, even though there are other problems that are now unavoidable.
As for "geoengineering"....ugh! The dangers can be worse than the risks avoided, and due to the feedback loops it's not always clear which are the safer choices.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.