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."

27 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. Seems he has more of a clue by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    than the climate skeptics like. But maybe they are right, maybe he should just give them spiritual guidance to stop lying for money.

    1. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's time to stop calling these people "skeptics". They are science denialists, just like creationists. Skeptic would imply that they have found fault with the current science and attack that line of reasoning, but they don't. Instead, they have already come up with the conclusion that climate change is no issue and it is not caused my man, which goes against all current evidence.

    2. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct. Most of these "skeptics" are right-wing cranks fed their beliefs from wingnut blogs, hate radio, and Fox News. They're not only not scientists, they don't believe in any science that runs counter to right-wing dogma. At some point the Republicans put out so much disinformation that the party became a cult, totally disconnected from reality.

    3. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by grimmjeeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might want to go look at the Catholic Church's stance on evolution and creation.

    4. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait...the pope is a creationist...

      Sorta.

      He believes God created the universe, yes, but not that it's 6000 years old or whatever - rather, God created the conditions to which things like science and evolution can take place. The Big Bang happened because God didn't create the universe, He created the conditions for the universe to exist. God didn't create Man, he created the environment to which evolution could take place to create Man.

      Effectively, he believes in evolution, but also in that God didn't wave a "magic wand" and Man suddenly popped out of nowhere. God created the conditions to which Man could evolve.

      It's a partial cop-out, but given science really cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, or what's outside the universe, well, that is God's domain.

    5. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really do not understand the hate involved here. Let's assume that climate change is NOT happening. We still have the following facts:

      1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.

      2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us.

      3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing. If Muslims want to kill Muslims, that sounds like their problem. There is no "right" side in a conflict like that.

      For all of these reasons, we should be decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change.

      So, what is the problem?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    6. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by neoritter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    8. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    9. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by dywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    10. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, I see. The rights of gay people, people of color, and women are "bullshit to get people worked up over petty, unimportant, feelgood crap." Let me guess: you're not gay, of color, or female. Because I assure you that to people who do fall into at least one of those categories, those are not unimportant issues! For that matter, weed, while much less important, is still a fairly big issue to many sick people who don't respond well to other medications; a not insignificant number of people. But, of course, to you, anyone who cares about weed must be a useless stoner...

      You're correct to suggest that the parties are identical on a lot of important issues, which is sad, because they're quite often both on the same wrong side. But they're on different sides on a lot of other issues, which, despite your lack of interest, are actually important to a lot of people. And on those issues, it seems to me, as someone faced with chosing between them on a regular basis, that the Dems are on the correct side the overwhelming majority of the time. Not always--I judge candidates by their stands on the issues, and I have voted for Republicans in the past, and may do so again if moderate fiscal conservatives ever manage to take back the party from the religious, anti-science nutjobs that seem to be running it now--but usually.

    11. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by dywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    12. Re:Seems he has more of a clue by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have not made any claims as to whether it is happening or not. Just looking for data, that's it. Now I have read that Greenland was once green, yet personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land.

      Well then here you go. Data on greenland icesheet melting.
      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

      This leads me to think while climate change certainly does happen man is not accelerating the process much if at all.

      Your lack of knowledge leads to a faulty conclusion so what you think doesnt matter here.

      Your "overwhelming evidence" gets destroyed regularly

      no it doesnt

      so trying to figure out if it all comes from Al Gore or if anyone else is conducting any independent research.

      Nearly every climate scientist in the world has come to the same conclusion after and while pursuing their own research.

      Wait until you guys get around to studying Pangaea, your heads will explode! And yes you are afraid. Afraid of being wrong. Science is never settled kiddo.

      Actually yes, science is settled. Especially as far as ignorant morons like you are concerned.
      That's a bullshit statement spouted by the ignorant to cover their ignorance.

      Science is rarely overturned. Rather it's simply refined, with rough edges smoothed out.
      Einstein didn't overturn Newton, he refined his theories.
      Similarly quantum doesn't overturn Einstein but has refined his contributions.

      2000 years ago the Greeks proved the Earth was round (and given that math and geometry has existed longer even they probably weren't the first). Then we proved that the Earth is in fact -NOT- a sphere, but a spheroid: it bulges in the middle due to its spin. Now, with GPS and gravity sensors, we've even improved on that, able to calculate local distortions in gravity and "trueness" to expected dimensions. The best example being that "sea level" isn't a constant value of elevation, varying by significant amounts around the globe thanks ot various factors as currents, temperature, salinity, etc.

      But there is a difference between refinement, and disproving.

      Temps have gone up.
      The ocean is warmer.
      CO causes radiative forcing.
      These are facts observed to be true, and are settled.

      The mountain of evidence is in global warmings favor.
      In order to "unsettle" that, you would need an ever bigger mountain of evidence.

      Unfortunately for you, that evidence doesn't exist, which is why "it's settled".

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. well... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the Pope is more progressive than you are then you might be an extremist.

    1. Re: well... by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re: well... by ranton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
  3. Re:Pontifical Academy of Sciences by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. This pope knows about Science by goruka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Does it matter if you are a sceptic or not? by Knightman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Does it matter if you are a sceptic or not? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To paraphrase Philip K. Dick, reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. That definition seems more and more appropriate every day.

  6. Confused much? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:Confused much? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we increase CO2 emissions, we will fuck those people over in a generation or two, making their lives even worse. And we'll do ourselves some considerable harm.

      The Heartland Institute is a mouthpiece for industries that emit CO2. It doesn't give a sweet fuck what happens to the Third World. Hell, these sociopaths don't even care what happens in the First World.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Sounds like... by Bonzoli · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like the Heartland Institute is getting a lot of Koch lately.

  8. Re:I agree with them by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Corrupted Minds Will Say Anything by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. You want the Pedophile Shuffler back? by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Pontifical Academy of Sciences by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Err, the church has always been learned, in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks.

    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.