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."
The point the Skeptics are making is that it is morally wrong to implement our current plan. We are turning food into fuel while people starve in the name of fighting climate change. There are 1.5 BILLION people living with no power, burning wood and dung for cooking and warmth. We could help them develop with fossil fuels but we don't. Meanwhile the entire plan if successful in cutting 80% emissions would only save ONE TENTH of a degree of warming. We also don't really know how much warming there will be, nor if that is actually dangerous. See Judith Curry's recent testimony before congress.
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
.
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?
Being against the death penalty is not an extreme progressive position, it's the default position of the civilized world. The only places with the death penalty are totalitarian China, Islamist hell holes, and third-world African countries. And the US.
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?
No, because the magnitude of the problem determines what our response should be.
*If climate change is catastrophically serious, we need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and immediately switch from coal to nuclear (as James Hansen advocates).
*If climate change is moderately serious, we can put resources into solar/wind/other technologies, and put them into production when they are viable (or somewhat before).
*If climate change is not serious, we can focus on improving the economy and living conditions of poor people, which by itself will reduce more serious pollution (like atmospheric sulfur and polluted rivers).
If we choose wrongly, our actions very likely will be counter-productive and take us farther from our goals.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"[The Pope]'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.
Yeaaaaahhhh. I trust this guy. :/
Anyway, we're all fucked anyway. We've frittered already for too long. This article written 10 years ago quoted scientists as saying we don't have 10 years to wait... (http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm).
Our only hope now is geoengineering, which has its own attendant problems (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/22/2310205/what-if-we-lost-the-sky).
They do. In fact, many Catholic organizations, such as Dayton University divested themselves of their fossil fuel holdings and moved the money to green energy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Name one [of the Catholic church's super progressive ideas].
The Catholic Church generally supports universal free healthcare, as long as it doesn't pay for the Pill or abortions.
This and other rebuttals in this thread illustrate the problem with how progressive issues are framed here in the United States. The death penalty and universally free healthcare are thought of as ultra progressive ideas in this country, but they are almost universally accepted as the status quo in the entire free world. Neither of these are progressive stances any more. Perhaps 50 years ago they were, but not in this century.
The United States has to go to the developing world to find other countries they are similar to on many important progressive issues. It is embarrassing.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
A picture is worth more than a thousand words: A brief history of gods
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, then go ahead and explain it. As a European, they look quite indistinguishable. But it may be the distance that blurs it, so please, what do they differ in?
And please, don't mention petty crap like whether gays should marry, whether people should smoke weed or whether abortion should be legal. Try to find something that actually matters, not just bullshit to get people worked up over petty, unimportant feelgood crap.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's a tenet of the Church actually.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/... :
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
It's not so much the amount of disinformation spewed that separates Republicans and Democrats as it is what subjects the disinformation gets spewed on. When it comes to science, many Republicans seem to have made it their goal to spew as much disinformation on as much science as possible. I feel sorry for the pro-science Republicans who are left. It must be disheartening to see so much anti-science coming from your party.
(Disclaimer: Historically, I've sided with Democrats but have been more and more dissatisfied with them. I'm in the "nowhere land" between both parties where neither party seems to satisfy me and will likely be voting third party more and more.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.