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.
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?
I strongly suspect that you will find most American and British conservatives are Protestants. Excommunicating them from the Catholic church would be a non-concept for them.
www.wavefront-av.com
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!!"
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.
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.
The overwhelming majority of climatologists are essentially paid by the taxpayers of their nations. Whether AGW is true or not, most of them would still be in related fields (atmospheric research, oceanography, geology, etc.) Climatologists have nothing to gain by AGW being demonstrated as happening, but the fossil fuel industry has an enormous amount to lose by it being generally accepted.
Note here that in the climatological community, the number of skeptics is probably around the same as the number of skeptics of evolution to be found in the biology community. There is very little controversy over AGW, no matter how much fossil fuel-funded propaganda outfits like Heartland claim there is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of the ancient culture was destroyed by purpose in the Middle Ages by the Church, at which time the monks, most of whom where illiterate, would just copy ecclesiastical material. A few of the most learned church high brass kbnew that Galileo was right, but they were afraid the populace would lose their unrelenting faith in the Church was it to admit it was wrong and Galieo was right. They never gave a d**n about scientific learning of the masses, they've always only protected their own wealth and power. And the best way to do so it keeping the people in subjugation, ignorance and superstition.
For chrissakes, that was four hundred years ago. Jesus christ, is that the best defense of the lying sociopaths at the Heartland Institute, that one of the Pope's predecessors, centuries ago, screwed over an astronomer?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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.
Surely, the church has always had a remarkable scientific establishment. They didn't lock up and suppress Galileo because of his science, they were just hostile to free thought and the free exchange of ideas more generally. :)
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
First they denied climate change. Next they denied human influence on the climate. Now they are denying man-made climate change will have some adverse effects. Deniers will always deny, until it's too late. The whole article is wrong. The debate is not about whether it is dangerous or not. Of course it is not dangerous. Life on earth isn't threatened by climate change. The debate is whether the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of acting now to reduce CO2 emissions. And most current evidence points us to answer positively, although we will never be 100% sure. The other debate is how to reduce emissions and who should reduce them. With most countries obviously arguing so that all others make the effort but not them. The developed countries are especially to blame, because they want to continue to pollute a lot more, per capita, than developing countries.
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
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.
Your argument assumes that the current climate 'change' is harmful for humans. Those claims are patent bullshit. There is plenty of evidence that if the CO2 levels increased the world's deserts would recede and the habitable area would actually increase not shrink. Some people would need to move. So what. It would happen over hundreds and thousands of years.