Climate change Intelligent Design Religion Science

Pope Francis and science: Fast backward to dark ages?

Spread the love

Is this a fair assessment?

From City Journal:

Shortly after the Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was consecrated Pope Francis in 2013, news stories reported that the new pontiff wanted to build a stronger relationship between the Catholic Church and science—one that saw science not in opposition to, but compatible with, religious belief. Some months later, the pope declared that evolution and the Big Bang theory of creation are real and don’t conflict with belief in God. Now, in the wake of the pope’s encyclical on climate change and the environment, Laudato Si (or, Be Praised), the press has exulted in the pope’s apparent effort to find even more “common ground” with science.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The encyclical, whose title is derived from a line from St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun (“Be praised, My Lord, through all your Creatures”), is being welcomed by some in the scientific community because it proclaims that climate change is real and that humanity must address it. But the nearly 38,000-word document—most of which is not about climate change—actually reads like a giant step backward for the Church’s social teaching: a rejection of technological progress; a dark, narrow vision of human nature that ignores the enormous gains the world has made in alleviating human suffering; and an almost antihuman call, reminiscent of the most radical environmentalists, to reduce human activity drastically as the only way to save the planet. As Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute and co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto, observed: “When [the] Pope speaks of ‘irrational faith in human progress’ I want him to visit the Congo to see what life is like when there is no progress.” More.

Also: Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy? Getting involved in a science controversy that depends fundamentally on evidence, not values?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

72 Replies to “Pope Francis and science: Fast backward to dark ages?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy?

    No.

    And what was the mistake that the Church made in the Galileo controversy? To resist being made to look like fools for adopting an idea for which there was no evidence?

  2. 2
    daveS says:

    Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy? Getting involved in a science controversy that depends fundamentally on evidence, not values?

    Is he expected to avoid this sort of thing? I don’t know anything about the Catholic church, but I assumed he would provide some leadership on what could be a very serious problem. Especially since it could disproportionately affect poor people.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Unless the church of Rome has some scientific revelation from God that will revolutionize life on earth, the Pope should shut up about science. The same goes for all the other churches, IMO.

  4. 4
    vjtorley says:

    Hi News. Thanks for reposting the very interesting commentary from City Journal. I’ll have more to say on the subject in my next two posts, which should be available within the next 24 hours.

  5. 5
    bb says:

    OT – My friend Chuck Koppany is a retired PhD chemical engineer and started his own website to self-publish his research, and comments on Christianity. When I asked him why he did that instead of publishing in journals, he said he didn’t like the arbitrary side of what does and doesn’t get published. I think this move reinforces what Denise and others on this site have said about peer review of late. He was contacted by at least one PhD candidate that stumbled across a paper of his and used it. Citation?

    Knowing Chuck, I think he would rather do long-distance bike riding than waste his time haggling with, and kissing up to journals. His site, if you’re interested, is http://www.crktech.com/. From the “about” page:

    Dr. Charles R. Koppany is a retired chemical engineer formerly employed by C F Braun & Co/ Brown & Root, Inc. from 1965 to 1994. While at Braun he served in both the Research and Process Engineering departments. Dr. Koppany has also done part-time teaching in the Chemical Engineering Departments at Cal Poly University Pomona and the University of Southern California. He holds B.S., M.S. and PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Southern California and is a registered professional engineer (Chemical) in the state of California.

  6. 6
    anthropic says:

    DaveS 2

    Actually, the poor have the most to lose from so-called green solutions to climate change. A recent Stanford study showed lower income groups hit disproportionately, since they spend a greater percentage of their income on energy and energy intensive activities such as food.

  7. 7
    daveS says:

    anthropic,

    DaveS 2

    Actually, the poor have the most to lose from so-called green solutions to climate change. A recent Stanford study showed lower income groups hit disproportionately, since they spend a greater percentage of their income on energy and energy intensive activities such as food.

    Sure, that could be true as well. No matter what happens, I expect the poor to take a bigger hit than the rich.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    Is he expected to avoid this sort of thing? I don’t know anything about the Catholic church, but I assumed he would provide some leadership on what could be a very serious problem. Especially since it could disproportionately affect poor people.

    You’re right. He’s expected to address issues of global importance like this and to provide moral guidance.

    This is not like the Galileo affair because climate change is something that is having observable effects on people and it’s the pope’s responsibility to teach that we need to use resources wisely and do whatever we can to try to avoid damage to the environment that could cause serious problems.

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “reminiscent of the most radical environmentalists”

    I’d say that on the whole, this is true of the encyclical.

    It’s a document that, for the most part, has nothing to do with Catholicism, as such, but is the Pope’s embrace of modern environmentalism. Which ain’t good.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    Roy says:

    Yet another example (or four) of Betteridge’s law

  11. 11
    buffalo says:

    From the Catholic Catechism – 373 In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”,249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

    IV. MAN IN PARADISE

    374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

    375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

    376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.252 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

    377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

  12. 12
    asauber says:

    “161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to
    coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and
    environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle,
    unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now
    periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be
    reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before
    those who will have to endure the dire consequences.”

    -Al Gore. I mean (ahem) Pope Francis.

    Some of you guys can keep trying to put lipstick on this piece of burnt bacon, or you can toss it in the grease bucket, where it actually goes, and stop wasting people’s time.

    Andrew

  13. 13
    harry says:

    I am about half way through the encyclical.

    I still have grave doubts about our ability to control the emergence and dissipation of ice ages and periods of global warming. The Pope’s opinion of humanity’s ability to control such things is not a matter of faith and morals, and as such the Pope’s opinion on these matters is not binding upon Catholics.

    Having said that, I must say that what I have read of the Encyclical is very much in line with traditional Catholic thought in terms of the sanctity of all human life. The Didache, the earliest Catholic Catechism known to us, dates back to the first century. It condemned taking the life of the innocent child in the womb. The Catholic Church has consistently condemned the taking of innocent human life from the moment that life was known to exist; understanding exactly when human life began to exist was dependent upon advances in science. When it was known to begin at conception, the Church defended children from the moment of their conception. The encyclical continues with this tradition:

    117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.

    118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then “our overall sense of responsibility wanes”. A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to “biocentrism”, for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.

    120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

    136. On the other hand, it is troubling that, when some ecological movements defend the integrity of the environment, rightly demanding that certain limits be imposed on scientific research, they sometimes fail to apply those same principles to human life. There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development. In the same way, when technology disregards the great ethical principles, it ends up considering any practice whatsoever as licit. As we have seen in this chapter, a technology severed from ethics will not easily be able to limit its own power.

    Indeed. A people grown used to the routine dismemberment of children in their midst, even when those children are often as viable or more viable than the patients in modern neonatal care units, cannot be expected to respond to the needs of the poor or to the possibility of climatic disasters. How can people be expected to respond to what might happen when they ignore the disaster that is already happening? A third of humanity is killed off before they ever see the light of day in the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life brought about by abortion-on-demand and by abortifacient contraception.

  14. 14
    asauber says:

    “the Pope’s opinion on these matters is not binding upon Catholics”

    harry,

    And this is one of the reasons the church has endured and will endure. If obvious BS comes out of the Pope’s mouth (or his pen), we Catholics don’t have to believe it.

    Andrew

  15. 15
    groovamos says:

    News: Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy?

    Is this a bit of confusion? The Galileo controversy was between the Pope and Galileo. “The Church” in Galileo’s day also consisted of the College of Cardinals (or whatever they called it then). The Cardinals fully accepted Galileo’s science. Because of the Pope’s hesitation, Galileo publicly baited him. So if I am reading correctly from internet sources, the fight between Galileo and the church was really a fight with the humiliated Pope, not the church at large. And Galileo, taking aim at the Pope, kinda paid the price, and was not known for humility either.

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    harry

    How can people be expected to respond to what might happen when they ignore the disaster that is already happening?

    True, but serious environmental problems are, indeed, already happening. But even still, you might be correct that people will always ignore a lot of problems, like abortion.
    At the same time, the pope simply cannot accept that as a good state of affairs for humanity. He has to try to teach people to care about such things.
    There are people who think there is no climate change occurring at all, and some who think there are no serious environmental problems on earth.
    It’s actually very traditional Catholic doctrine not to live with excessive consumption and/or waste and to be irresponsible with the resources we have been given.

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    groovamos

    That’s a good summary from my reading of it. There wasn’t an official condemnation of Galileo’s science. He got in trouble because he made exaggerated theological claims that went beyond the science — and there was the personal/political aspect you mentioned.

  18. 18
    asauber says:

    “It’s actually very traditional Catholic doctrine not to live with excessive consumption”

    Silver,

    So when are the Saints of Enviornmentalism (oh let’s take Al Gore and every other Western elitist power broker/pol/climate change pusher) going to stop living excessively and adopt this Catholic Doctrine that Pope Francis is pushing?

    Are you getting the joke yet?

    Andrew

  19. 19
    jerry says:

    So if I am reading correctly from internet sources, the fight between Galileo and the church was really a fight with the humiliated Pope, not the church at large. And Galileo, taking aim at the Pope, kinda paid the price, and was not known for humility either.

    Galileo has been discussed on this site numerous times. Here is a comment from over 8 years ago. It was all about the politics of what became known as the 30 Year War.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-161801

    In the Galileo affair, Urban was the good guy and Galileo was the bad guy so BarryA’s final analogy is not appropriate. The conventional wisdom for the last couple centuries would support BarryA’s argument but is not accurate.

    The following seemed to be agreed upon. Urban was under threat from people that included Galileo’s main sponsor, Ferdinando II de’ Medici, the Duke of Tuscany. Urban was trying to stop a war and wouldn’t support the Hapsburgs. Urban was one of Galileo better friends and supporter in his scientific work. Urban suggested that the title of his book be changed to emphasize the Ptolemy/Copernicus controversy and away from Galileo silly argument about the tides demonstrating the earth was moving. Galileo’s title was a “Dialogue on the Tides” and under Urban’s suggestion became “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” Urban personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo’s book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo but in a derogatory way in the mouth of a simpleton

    So Galileo betrays Urban under the seal of the man who is helping to depose him. Do we know for sure that Galileo did not know that Urban was under pressure from his sponsor and that maybe he did this on purpose. What would you think if you were Urban. This is hypothetical but was a person like Galileo that much out of the loop not to sense the politics of the time. Galileo also takes it upon himself on how the Church should interpret scripture during a time when the interpretation of scripture is an issue that leads to wars. Tell me how Galileo is a good guy in this scenario and Urban is a bad guy. This whole episode is about politics and has nothing to do with science or religion.

    For his action, Galileo was sentenced to that harsh Inquisition torture, the comfy chair (house arrest.) He continued to write while under house arrest and produce what is considered one of his finest works, “Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences.” It was not published till much later in Holland as his works were banned because of his sentence. So this last is the only unfair thing that happened to Galileo and it was after his death.

    So let’s not use Galileo as an example of the oppression of science when the so called oppresssors are champions of Galileo and science in general. Yes, it involved both science and religion but it was primarily a very bad political decision by Galileo that led to his sentence. He betrayed one of his best friends and his spiritual leader. Whether he did so out of arrogance or deliberately, he got what was coming to him.

  20. 20
    Mapou says:

    Pope Francis should stop preaching to the world. The Church of Rome has not had anything interesting to say in at least a millennium. Rather, the Pope should relegate his duties to preserve the Church’s heritage, architecture and history. The world is grateful for all those amazing cathedrals, monasteries and such. The Vatican itself is a beautiful place.

    I say, turn them all into tourist attractions. Even the funny looking garbs that you wear in public can become tourist attractions. And, by all means, open the Vatican archives. All of them. Let the whole world see all the hideous but precious skeletons in every Vatican closet, even those dating back to the first few centuries of the Christian era. They, too, can become tourist attractions. 😀

  21. 21
    anthropic says:

    I am one non-Catholic who is deeply grateful for the Church’s civilizing influence on my Irish immigrant ancestors. At one time they were so notorious for fighting, drunkenness, and idleness that many businesses refused to hire them. Now we just think of them as “white.”

    And, historically, the Catholic Church was the first large institution to systematically oppose slavery. By the tenth century, Christian Europe has largely banished the practice, aside from a few places that traded extensively with Muslims.

    That said, I think the Pontiff is ill-served pontificating on matters about which he is deeply ignorant, including economics and climate change.

  22. 22
    harry says:

    A people grown used to the routine dismemberment of children in their midst, even when those children are often as viable or more viable than the patients in modern neonatal care units, cannot be expected to respond to the needs of the poor or to the possibility of climatic disasters. How can people be expected to respond to what might happen when they ignore the disaster that is already happening? A third of humanity is killed off before they ever see the light of day in the ongoing holocaust of innocent human life brought about by abortion-on-demand and by abortifacient contraception.
    — harry

    … serious environmental problems are, indeed, already happening. But even still, you might be correct that people will always ignore a lot of problems, like abortion. At the same time, the pope simply cannot accept that as a good state of affairs for humanity. He has to try to teach people to care about such things.
    — Silver Asiatic

    Yes. The Church has an obligation to teach people to care about such things. This includes teaching people how to prioritize the issues. The seamless garment approach, or recognizing all violations of human dignity, is a good thing as long as each issue is assigned a realistic priority.

    Let’s say we have a big family living in a house. The roof leaks and is in need of repair. The children are malnourished due to poverty. There is a fire above the stove in the kitchen. According to the seamless garment approach each of these items needs attention. I have no problem with that, as long as the fire in the kitchen is dealt with first.

    The state claiming for itself the authority to sanction the killing of innocent humanity is a fire in the kitchen that has spread throughout the house, killing nearly sixty million innocent American children since Roe was handed down. Roe not only struck down by judicial fiat state laws protecting the life of the child in the womb that were put in place by the elected representatives of the people, it overthrew the government established by America’s Founders.

    Let me explain why it did nothing less than that. Humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence in order to protect the inalienable rights of humanity. The state therefore exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is humanity therefore that bestows and withdraws the state’s right to exist, not the reverse. These are not novel ideas. These are the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. When the Supreme Court claimed for itself the authority to abruptly withdraw the protection of law from the child in the womb, it claimed for itself the authority bestow and withdraw humanity’s right to exist. This nation was founded upon the notion that it is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state’s right to exist. According to the Founders humanity has a right and a duty to alter or abolish a government that does not recognize and protect the inalienable rights of humanity. If you doubt that, reread the Declaration.

    Climate change, if there is anything we can do about it at all, is like the leaky roof. An egomaniacal Caesar pretending he has the authority to sanction the killing of innocent humanity by the millions is a fire in the kitchen that will eventually consume all of us if we don’t respond to it in a realistic way.

  23. 23
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew

    So when are the Saints of Enviornmentalism (oh let’s take Al Gore and every other Western elitist power broker/pol/climate change pusher) going to stop living excessively and adopt this Catholic Doctrine that Pope Francis is pushing?

    Are you getting the joke yet?

    I know what you’re saying, but the thing is, people have to be challenged to stop living wastefully and excessively. In the Christian context, we have to love God and our neighbor — so that means we have to care about people. Of course, we’re all hypocrites to some extent. All Catholics are ‘bad Catholics’ — we all fall short. But we should be trying to get better.

    Just because some people don’t care about the environment, doesn’t mean we don’t need to also. To me, it’s a logical extension of the ID inference – life shows evidence of wise and beautiful design. We should appreciate that. The cycle and balance of nature. Catholic tradition always celebrated that and knew a lot about it (much was because of an agricultural society).
    Human life shows evidence of sinful waste, gluttony (in all its forms) and many things that make the world ugly and actually which hurt other people and all human culture.
    We can see the ID evidence. We should be able to see the evidence of unnecessary damage to the earth also.

    Just because some people are abusive and evil doesn’t mean we don’t have to try to do the best we can. Living moderately, not being wasteful, getting concerned about preserving nature, appreciating wildlife, finding cleaner more efficient technology … to me, that’s all ID-friendly activity. It’s also totally consistent with Catholic teaching.

    For Catholics, it’s interesting that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs have been saying the same thing as Pope Francis regarding the ecology — how could God be happy with pollution of fresh water or excessive, wasteful consumerism?

    I don’t think we should let our political opponents, whoever they may be, force us into a reactionary stance that becomes blind to the world’s problems.

    I would think that conservatives would be the first to want to preserve ecological balance, since liberalism is the cause of out-of-control waste and dangerous experiments in the environment.

    I think a good theology would say that we have responsibility for future generations and for the care and benefit of other people living with us on earth — and just making money and consuming as many resources as we can, leaving nothing behind is not the best way to live.

  24. 24
    Zachriel says:

    jerry: For his action, Galileo was sentenced to that harsh Inquisition torture, the comfy chair (house arrest.)

    Galileo was in his thirties when Bruno was burned alive by the Inquisition.

    I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves

    jerry: In the Galileo affair, Urban was the good guy and Galileo was the bad guy

    Galileo was forced to recant under threat of torture.

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    harry

    Let’s say we have a big family living in a house. The roof leaks and is in need of repair. The children are malnourished due to poverty. There is a fire above the stove in the kitchen. According to the seamless garment approach each of these items needs attention. I have no problem with that, as long as the fire in the kitchen is dealt with first.

    I wouldn’t say that environmental damage is merely a leaky roof. It has the potential of causing lots of suffering and death to children. Famines, polluted resources, starvation, and weather disasters also kill people.
    So, I’d only disagree that we should do nothing else until abortion is eliminated from society.

    We can’t prioritize sin in our own personal life, for example. A person beats his wife and steals from employees and wastes children’s inheritance on gambling.
    We wouldn’t say, “until you stop the worst of those sins, there’s no reason to stop the others”.

    We have to integrate everything together.

    I understand and accept the priority of abortion. But a priority doesn’t mean exclusive interest. We have to stop abortion, and care for pregnant women, and care for the poor, and care for exploited children, and defend family life and not destroy the earth or human culture.

    If the question is political focus and where to spend one’s time for candidates or as an activist – that’s a different question. It depends how much time you have.

    I volunteer for a pro-life organization locally myself, to the extent that I can. I don’t spend all of my free time on that, not because the children are not worth the effort, but because I have to live an integrated life as a human being.

    Some may say (and I would agree) that there is at least one ‘campaign’ that is far more essential than stopping abortion. If we were only going to do one thing, we should do that — namely, converting everyone to God so they live a moral and virtuous life and would never consider abortion.

    I mean, why bother trying to change civil laws and not try to change the spiritual and ethical orientation of everyone?

    From my perspective, the killing of babies is the type of thing that Cortez found when he encountered the Aztec empire. He was able to have a big impact through military force, but eventually it was a widespread conversion of the population that got rid of human sacrifice finally.

    So, it’s a question of tactics and goals as I see it. Not limited to one thing.

    In any case, I know what you’re saying.

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    “I know what you’re saying, but the thing is, people have to be challenged to stop living wastefully and excessively.”

    Silver,

    So do you really mean *some* people have to be challenged to stop living excessively? Do you really expect me to believe that you think the Pope is challenging all the Friends in High Places to live modestly? You know, the ones jetting off to climate conferences in touristy cities?

    I frankly find your Holier-Than-Thou Climate Concern to be completely phony.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    daveS says:

    Holier than thou? I didn’t get that vibe from SA’s post. In fact it’s very consistent with the messages I’ve heard popes deliver going back to the late 1970s.

  28. 28
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew

    So do you really mean *some* people have to be challenged to stop living excessively?

    Everybody does. Myself first because I have to worry about my own salvation. I am a sinner and I can apply every correction to myself.

    Do you really expect me to believe that you think the Pope is challenging all the Friends in High Places to live modestly? You know, the ones jetting off to climate conferences in touristy cities?

    Yes, I expect you to believe that the pope is sincerely calling everyone to live the way God wants.

    I don’t know why you think my concern for the environment is phony. I love nature and God’s creation and I have always hated seeing nature ruined by crass commercialism. I fought against that all my life.

    My interest in the beauty of nature and creation is the primary reason why I am an IDist and why the ID inference made so much sense to me.

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    daveS

    Thank you — and good point. The popes have been saying this for a long time.

    Populorum Progressio from 1967 is one example.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    This is a good article on prior teachings of Popes on the environment and use of resources even going back to the 19th century in the first social encyclicals on economics:

    http://www.catholic.com/magazi.....mentalists

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    “the pope is sincerely calling everyone to live the way God wants.”

    This is just poetry. Let’s get back to the real world.

    The pope is not calling for Western elites to stop living excessively. He’s inviting them to Rome for climate conferences and to take in the sights and spend some tourist money.

    Andrew

  32. 32
    asauber says:

    This is nothing more than a propaganda campaign:

    “The Vatican summit meeting will focus on the links between poverty, economic development and climate change, with speeches and panel discussions by climate scientists and religious leaders, and economists like Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who is leading efforts to forge the Paris accord, will deliver the opening address.

    Vatican officials, who have spent more than a year helping Francis prepare his message, have convened several meetings already on the topic. Last month, they met with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy.

    In the United States, the encyclical will be accompanied by a 12-week campaign, now being prepared with the participation of some Catholic bishops, to raise the issue of climate change and environmental stewardship in sermons, homilies, news media interviews and letters to newspaper editors, said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant in Washington.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04......html?_r=0

    Andrew

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    “23 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”

    Andrew

  34. 34
    harry says:

    Hello Silver Asiatic,

    Thanks for your thoughtful remarks and for engaging in this discussion.

    Allow me to continue to disagree. ;o)

    Many things have an negative impact on the well being of humanity. Our well being is spiritual as well as material. Climate change can have a negative impact upon humanity. So can economic injustice. So can many other things. Some things though are devastating to everyone spiritually if not to everyone materially. The tolerance of the deification of the state is one such thing.

    Caesar is basically telling us that he doesn’t care that our God’s command to us was, “Thou shalt do no murder,” he says that there is a segment of humanity we can kill. Caesar has claimed for himself authority over innocent human life that belongs to God alone. We are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s. Such authority over innocent humanity simply does not belong to Caesar anymore than our worship is due to Caesar.

    Silence and complacency in this matter is burning incense to Caesar. It is idolatry. Even worse than the killing of innocent humanity by the millions is the spiritual death of an entire nation that tolerates the deification of the state.

    We should know better than to allow this. In the early twenties, long before Hitler was a well known public figure, the first attempts were made to legalize abortion in Germany. The push to legitimize euthanasia began with the publication of Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche’s The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value (Life Unworthy of Life). They argued for “humane” state sanctioned killing of innocent humanity.

    An excerpt of the sermon by Cardinal Clemens von Galen, delivered on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in Münster Cathedral, in which he risked his life by openly condemning the Nazi euthanasia program (the Nazis murdered three of his priests in retaliation):

    Who will be able to trust his doctor any more?

    He may report his patient as ‘unproductive’ and receive instructions to kill him. It is impossible to imagine the degree of moral depravity, of general mistrust that would then spread even through families if this dreadful doctrine is tolerated, accepted and followed.

    Woe to mankind, woe to our German nation if God’s Holy Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ which God proclaimed on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightning, which God our Creator inscribed in the conscience of mankind from the very beginning, is not only broken, but if this transgression is actually tolerated and permitted to go unpunished.

    “Woe to mankind” indeed. The deification of the state of Germany, and the absolute corruption of power that always flows from absolute power, led to WWII, which ended in the destruction of 3% of the world population. What God had told us was, of course, proven true:

    … I will demand an account of every man’s life from his fellow men. He who sheds man’s blood, shall have his blood shed by man, for in the image of God man was made.
    — Genesis 9:5-6

    Ideas have consequences. The false idea of mere mortals thinking they can “be like God” has always had the most terrible consequences.

    The deification of the state is idolatrous for those who signal approval of it by their silence and complacency. It always brings about an assault on the image of God in innocent humanity, and it brings about spiritual death among everyone who participates in it. Yeah. Climate change may have a negative impact on humanity. The spiritual assault on all of us and the material assault on innocent humanity made in the image of God, perpetrated by none other than one we have on good authority is the father of lies and a “murderer from the start,” has to be dealt with first if humanity is to reasonably expect that God will bestow His blessings upon it instead of His wrath.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    harry

    Thanks for your reply also. You certainly could be right and I’m in no position to argue about how God will bestow His blessings or wrath upon us. I just pray for His mercy and try to do the best I can as the flawed human being who I am.

    With that, I don’t deny that there are prophetic voices among us. One social sin or another. You use the terms “silence and complacency” and I don’t know who you’re directing that to, but as above, I’m certainly in need of moral improvement in many areas and I accept your correction if I’ve done something wrong here.

    But with that I look to the wisdom of our church leaders and teachers and try to be guided by that. In this case, I see the Pope offering moral teaching that seems essential and important to me, and even if I didn’t agree with it, I’d still draw the same conclusion, that this is an important matter. Call me a ‘dumb follower’ or whatever, but I tend to trust the wisdom of the Popes over my own private judgement. I don’t think the church is merely offering a political campaign and I’ve learned, from bad experience, that it’s not wise to set oneself against teachers appointed by God, unless one has the rare calling and sanctification to do so (St. Joan, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, Fr. Savonarola, O.P., etc). In this, I’m not questioning or doubting your own gifts at all — I’m just speaking prudentially.

    But after all that,

    Climate change may have a negative impact on humanity.

    You don’t perceive that it already is having a very negative impact on humanity?

  36. 36
    harry says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    I am NOT directing anything at you personally. Rather I am sincerely grateful to you for engaging in this discussion.

    We all have different callings. We are all called to care for Christ in His least brethren in some way or another. Not everyone is called to be a Pro-Life activist, although all are called to be Pro-Life and to speak the truth in charity. (And, I think, to be honest about the gravity of the various assaults on Christ in His least brethren.)

    For me it is like this: During the days of slavery in America, the number one issue, whether people wanted to admit it or not, was the enslavement of innocent human beings by the millions — the buying, selling and breeding of human beings like they were animals. Some people were called to never stop pointing that out. They often received for doing that exactly what Christ promised his followers they would receive: The hatred and persecution of the world. The Abolitionists were hated by both sides and still are to this day by many. They were genuine followers of Christ. That is all I hope to be, and, trust me, I often fail miserably at it. We need to help each other get up out of the mud and filth of sin, let ourselves be washed clean with the water that flowed from the side of Christ, help each other hoist up our individual crosses again, and together resume following Him, wherever that may lead. You help me do that and I will do my best to help you. ;o)

  37. 37
    asauber says:

    “You don’t perceive that it already is having a very negative impact on humanity?”

    Silver,

    I don’t. But, I’m open to scrutinizing your evidence that it is, if you have some. So, Care to Share? Or do you consider it secret knowledge that only True Believers understand?

    Andrew

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    harry – thank you and I appreciate your challenge and help, which I really need. 🙂 And I hope I could do the same for you.

    I would never want to underplay the horrible situation with abortion or with atheistic state control on many issues.

    I agree also that a lot of otherwise good people were taken in by slavery and by Nazism. I’m just glad the pro-life movement continues to grow and be more successful. That success didn’t come without a lot of persecution and sacrifice and we still need more of the same.

    I see that parallel with ID. It’s still generally hated but it’s gaining momentum.

  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Andrew

    Or do you consider it secret knowledge that only True Believers understand?

    I’m very sure that there are some (including yourself?) who don’t think there is any climate change going on at all, and others like yourself see nothing negative.

    So, I don’t think it’s secret knowledge but I do think it requires a certain perspective to see things the way I (and millions of others) do.

    I could reference the current drought in California (Google: Effect of Drought in California) which is the worst in recorded history.

    But I know how people can parse scientific reports and arrive at radically different interpretations of the data.

    I’m not really interested in convincing anybody who doesn’t see things the way I do.

    I don’t think the Pope just fabricated this issue out of nothing in order to get more tourist money, as you said however. As I see it, that notion is beyond absurd.

    Average, ordinary people who don’t read scientific papers can recognize a climate change in their own local environment. I think it takes quite a lot to deny what people are living through. I can see it myself. I was alive decades ago and I know what the weather was like.

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    “I don’t think the Pope just fabricated this issue out of nothing in order to get more tourist money”

    I didn’t say that was the reason this issue was fabricated. I just mentioned it as one of the excesses the pope was not encouraging his friends to discontinue.

    Have fun in fairyland.

    Andrew

  41. 41
    velikovskys says:

    asauber:

    I didn’t say that was the reason this issue was fabricated. I just mentioned it as one of the excesses the pope was not encouraging his friends to discontinue.

    Why then is the Pope fabricating the issue?

  42. 42
    asauber says:

    “Why then is the Pope fabricating the issue?”

    velikovskys,

    Well, the Pope isn’t the originator of the lie. But he is going along with it (Perhaps not fully aware? I like to give benefits of doubt where due) for exact reasons known only to him.

    But it is human nature to make errors in judgment. That I do know. The pope is not immune. All our best saints did the same.

    Are you going along with it?

    Andrew

  43. 43
    velikovskys says:

    Asaber:
    Well, the Pope isn’t the originator of the lie. But he is going along with it (Perhaps not fully aware? I like to give benefits of doubt where due) for exact reasons known only to him.

    Perhaps he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists that it is both real and problematic, but then I like to give him the benefit of the doubt as well.

    But it is human nature to make errors in judgment. That I do know. The pope is not immune. All our best saints did the same.

    I agree, finite minds ,finite knowledge, and certainly I disagree with the Pope’s view of birth control.

    Are you going along with it?

    It seems better to err on the side of caution, in addition those who claim nothing to see here are less convincing both in data and motivation. How are you so sure?

  44. 44
    Mapou says:

    Pope Francis is now claiming that those who manufacture weapons are not Christians. How about the soldiers who use them? How about the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed?

    IMO, the Pope should focus his attention on ridding the clergy of the child molesters and other perverts. What kind of men are these who don’t like women? This is all very strange. We, the people of the world, are not stupid.

    And, for crying out loud, stop telling people that they need to confess to some priest in order to get their sins forgiven. That, too, is perverted.

  45. 45
    asauber says:

    “Perhaps he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists that it is both real and problematic”

    Good thing science is evidence-based and not what-group-believes-what-based, so we can better judge these things.

    “It seems better to err on the side of caution”

    I agree. Let’s have climate science produce some better evidence before we engage in the chicken-littleisms.

    Andrew

  46. 46
    Axel says:

    Why do you feel almost rancorous about it, asauber? Are you a disinterested commentator, or do you have some personal, financial interest in the issue, e.g. Shares in hydrocarbons?

    I believe I read recently than the weather seemed to have stabilised over the past 7 (or 12) years. Perhaps it was the depletion of the ozone layer. Anyway, apparently, the triple China Syndrome at Fukushima (each of the three reactors twice the size of Chernobyl) is apparently contributing a pink colour to the sky as far away as Alaska, as a result of a certain radioactive toxic contaminant.

    They are also talking about the seismic activity and tsunami having been caused by some demonic human activity called HAARP, aimed at changing the weather on a large scale.

    ‘Some researchers have raised questions about the possible involvement of HAARP in major disasters like the earthquake in Haiti, Indonesian tsunami, and hurricane Katrina. Could these have been HAARP experiments gone awry? Might they even have been caused by rogue elements which gained control of this devastating technology. Of course disasters like this happen regularly on a natural basis, yet if you begin to research, there is some high strangeness around some of these disasters. The evidence is inconclusive, yet with the known and unknown major destructive capabilities of this weapon, serious questions remain.’

    … from this site:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/h.....fare/20407

  47. 47
    asauber says:

    “Why do you feel almost rancorous about it, asauber?”

    I don’t.

    Andrew

  48. 48
    velikovskys says:

    map ou:
    Pope Francis is now claiming that those who manufacture weapons are not Christians. How about the soldiers who use them? How about the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed?

    You have a link for that?

  49. 49
    Mapou says:

    Velikosky @48, it’s all over the news. Do a Google News search. Here’s where I got it from:

    Pope Francis Says Arms Manufacturers Can’t Call Themselves Christian

  50. 50
    anthropic says:

    Given that the minimum estimated cost to fight climate change is $40 trillion, and other estimates are as high as $100 trillion, which will result in millions of extra deaths and tens of millions more in poverty, it is incumbent upon the warmists to prove their case.

    Many warmists aren’t even aware that CO2 in itself is subject to diminishing effects; thus in itself cannot create the climatic catastrophe so often prophesied. Instead the assumption is made that climate feedbacks will multiply the effect of rising CO2 levels.

    But realists understand that the best evidence we have is that feedbacks are a net dampening effect. The Sun has brightened 30 percent over Earth’s history, and CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude higher than today, yet runaway heat has not happened. Furthermore, the warmist “hot spot” and water vapor predictions, critical to their case, have been thoroughly falsified by observational data.

    The best theory I’ve heard that accounts for the dampening effect is the formation of thunderstorms in the tropics. As temps rise, more T storms build up, cooling the Earth by radiating heat into space as well as increasing albedo and raining.

    Anyway, the catastrophe models have failed repeatedly, and in the same direction: higher temps than actually occur. Honest folks would demand at a minimum accurate predictions before condemning so many millions to death and/or poverty.

    For a clear discussion of where warmists and skeptics differ — no, it is NOT the warming impact of CO2 itself — see http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....more-57635

  51. 51
    Zachriel says:

    antrhopic: Many warmists aren’t even aware that CO2 in itself is subject to diminishing effects; thus in itself cannot create the climatic catastrophe so often prophesied.

    If by “warmists”, you mean climate scientists, they are certainly aware, that’s why climate sensitivity is expressed as a doubling of CO2.

    antrhopic: But realists understand that the best evidence we have is that feedbacks are a net dampening effect.

    Actually, the Earth’s climate see-saws between ice ages and periods with no ice caps. In any case, studies of historical climate change support a value of climate sensitivity in the range of 2-5°C.

  52. 52
    anthropic says:

    Z: “If by “warmists”, you mean climate scientists, they are certainly aware, that’s why climate sensitivity is expressed as a doubling of CO2.”

    Warmists are anyone who believes that catastrophe looms due to anthropogenic CO2. I’m absolutely certain that, if polled, the majority would affirm that CO2 itself is the problem, rather than the feedbacks.

    After all, how often are the assumed feedbacks mentioned in the media when these issues are raised? Not often, because that would lead to a discussion about hotspots and water vapor that warmists don’t want to have.

    Runaway greenhouse heating, a la Venus, has never happened despite a steadily brightening Sun and far higher CO2 levels in the past. That in itself should tell us that feedbacks are a negative, dampening force, rather than a positive, reinforcing one.

  53. 53
    Zachriel says:

    anthropic: Warmists are anyone who believes that catastrophe looms due to anthropogenic CO2.

    A lot of scientists think humans can adapt successfully to a warming climate, and while there will be damage and costs, catastrophe is not inevitable, even with significant warming. Guess you don’t call them “warmists”.

    anthropic: I’m absolutely certain that, if polled, the majority would affirm that CO2 itself is the problem, rather than the feedbacks.

    If you ask why there are seasons, many people will answer it is because the Earth is closer to the Sun.

    In any case, CO2 is the primary driver of the current global warming. Water vapor feedbacks are the inevitable consequence of changes in atmospheric CO2. CO2 is, therefore, the primary problem with regards to anthropogenic climate change.

    anthropic: Runaway greenhouse heating, a la Venus, has never happened despite a steadily brightening Sun and far higher CO2 levels in the past.

    Virtually no scientists think there will be a runaway effect as on Venus. Rather, the system will stabilize at a higher temperature dependent on greenhouse gas levels.

  54. 54
    anthropic says:

    Those who do not think that a gradual warming is anything to be alarmed about, certainly not justifying $40 to $100 trillion in costs that will kill and impoverish many millions, are not what I consider “warmists.” Lukewarmists may be a better term.

    Heck, I myself am in that category. My only difference with some of them is that I think there is a good case that rising CO2 and a slight warming is not only not especially harmful, it is actually helpful for life.

    And I note you continue to skate around the key problems with warmism. One, the models consistently overestimate warming. Two, the models call for a hot spot in the tropical atmosphere which does not exist. Three, the models predictions about atmospheric water vapor have been falsified.

    Without the hot spot and the water vapor, the positive feedbacks necessary for warmist predictions of catastrophic warming fall flat. But given the money, power, and faith invested in alarmism, I fully expect this fallacy to be with us for quite some time, regardless of the evidence and the cost.

  55. 55
    Zachriel says:

    anthropic: One, the models consistently overestimate warming.

    Actually, overall model projections are consistent with observation.

    Marotzke & Forster, Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends, Nature 2015: “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.

    anthropic: Two, the models call for a hot spot in the tropical atmosphere which does not exist.

    The tropospheric tropical hotspot is not a signature of greenhouse warming, but is a function of the lapse rate. Observations are consistent with predictions.

    Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data, Environmental Research Letters 2015: “These results confirm those of the other newer studies, suggesting that tropospheric warming has indeed proceeded as expected in spite of the problems that earlier studies have had in detecting it.

    anthropic: Three, the models predictions about atmospheric water vapor have been falsified.

    Apparently not.

    Chung et al., Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming, PNAS 2014: “Here, we use a set of coordinated model experiments to confirm that the satellite-observed increase in upper-tropospheric water vapor over the last three decades is primarily attributable to human activities. This attribution has significant implications for climate sciences because it corroborates the presence of the largest positive feedback in the climate system.

  56. 56
    buffalo says:

    Catholicism cannot and should not stay out of science. They are inextricably linked.

  57. 57
    Axel says:

    buffalo, I see a number of corresponding continua: time-space,
    secular faith-knowledge,
    Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge,
    physical light-spiritual light; and that the major paradigm changers would have benefited from their operating on the basis of those continua, whether consciously or intuitively.

  58. 58
    Axel says:

    buffalo, I see a number of corresponding continua: time-space,
    secular faith-knowledge,
    Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge,
    physical light-spiritual light; and that the major paradigm changers would have benefited from an interlocking of those continua, whether conscious or intuitive.

  59. 59
    Axel says:

    Sorry about that folks. I was in too much of a hurry to get other things done.

    In any case, I should have posited a spectrum of continua, extending from space-time to secular faith-knowledge to Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge to physical light-Judaeo-Christian light.

    I think it may be encapsulated in C S Lewis’ apothegm:

    “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

  60. 60
    Axel says:

    Francis is anxious we don’t think he favours any ideology, but what is an ideology. If we leave justice (which must precede considerations of charity) to the individual, in an enlightened society, we end up straining at a gnat, to swallow a camel’, as is manifestly the status quo, after the ravages of decades of right-wing governments in the UK, and pretty much immemorially in the US.

    Christ’s fulminations at the extortions from the poor by the politico-religious leaders of his day would indicate that there can be no society without an ideology; it is just a matter of whether it is greed, however opportunistic or systematised, natural to leaders of human societies, or antisocialist, or more inclusive and socialist.

    It parallels, well, is really an expression of politics, isn’t it? As a missionary said when expelled from Indonesia for being ‘political’, some decades ago, ‘No. If I’d ‘kept my head down’, that would have been political. That will be the judgment faced by prelates in South America who cosied up to the monstrous fascist caudillos, and deplored the systematic attempts of their betters lower down the pecking order, to succour the immiserated and oppressed, who tried to be a Father of the Poor.

    Pace InAyn Rand and her hapless acolyte, Thatcher, aka Baronness Lady Cardboard, there IS such as a thing as society, and there is no virtue in personalising gifts of charity/justice); taxation enables us more easily to give, without patting ourselves too heartily on the back – not allowing our ‘left hand to know what our right hand is doing.’

    Taxation proportionate to income, (as recommended most ironically by Adam Smith) levied at source, would presumably mean that a large part of the public paid none, while the well-to-do would still be very well off indeed by the latter’s standards.

  61. 61
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Axel

    taxation enables us more easily to give

    It’s an interesting thought and I’ve considered that before. There is the problem, however, that we often end up involuntarily giving to unsavory causes and projects along with the good ones.
    Governments reflect someone’s value-system and there’s only a problem when they don’t reflect our own (as is often the case for me in America, for example, unfortunately).
    If taxes went more generally to good causes, I would be glad to pay them.

  62. 62
    Axel says:

    A good point, Silver. One would have to trust that Francis’ promotion of Gospel Christian values would win over a substantial majority of the electorate, sufficient to prevent the politicians from doing the bidding of the 1%.

    The policies favoured by such a regenerate electorate would surely create synergies under God’s approving gaze. Perhaps it’s thinking along such lines that prompts Francis’ at times, to seem self-contradictory in his strictures, as vjt indicates, although I notice that soon after publication of his Encyclical on the Environment he – for the first time, I believe – started to fulminate on the mega villainy of the multinationals.

    Incidentally, I don’t believe ‘the green revolution’, however beneficial, could possibly render the precautionary principle redundant, as vjt seems to imply. Far from it.

  63. 63
    Axel says:

    I’ve just Googled ‘green revolution’, and it sounds to me to have become the stuff of nightmares – and that’s without any consideration of Monsanto’s promising to usher in a new ‘green revolution’. I’ve not been able to open Monsanto-related Google pages on the topic.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....994590.stm

  64. 64
    asauber says:

    “taxation enables us more easily to give”

    I think this is wrong. Giving requires a free act of the will, otherwise it’s not giving.

    Taxation is the pretense that some use as their substitute for actual giving. It’s a way of justifying their lack of giving, in a lot of cases.

    Andrew

  65. 65
    Axel says:

    Well, it’s like finks, isn’t it, asauber. They should be sacked from the company if they didn’t support the industrial action that won the workers a pay-rise. At the very least, not receive the pay-rise themselves.

    Some social obligations trump the fetish of a false freedom. Is the duty of parents to nurture and protect their children an offence against their freedom? No. Of course. Not. You are part of a society. A society in which your REAL freedom may have to be defended, particularly by infantrymen and tank crews, whose casualty rates are exceptionally high, men and women drawn from the class of people you would deny welfare to, even after closing down the companies they worked for, in pursuit of ever greater profits, most of which you will never need, moreover.

    The great-grandparents of many of those currently sleeping on the streets in the US would have fought in WWII. Ultimately, it was as much a fight to protect the US from attack that would have finally eventuated against the Nazis as it was the European countries.

    How would you like it if you’d suffered the horrors of that war ‘at the sharp end’, in the knowledge that the greedy and selfish would marginalise your quite near descendants to the point of utter destitution and life on the street. Many of the latter would have fought in less worthy causes to keep you comfortably off, and themselves, emerged psychologically-broken men and sometimes women?

    Those who complain about not being allowed to be free to give or not, would clearly be mot reluctant to give. Christ taught that we were to have contempt for money. As Francis put it: Our charity/selfless love (our passport to salvation) must reach a far a our pockets. Do you really believe that you could be relied on to make regular, adequate contributions to the physical welfare of your less affluent compatriots, without the obligation of taxation?

  66. 66
    asauber says:

    “Do you really believe that you could be relied on to make regular, adequate contributions to the physical welfare of your less affluent compatriots, without the obligation of taxation?”

    This is how brainwashed you progs are. Giving is not about class warfare. But that’s the issue y’all invariably demagogue, when giving is discussed. How about we discuss what the nature of giving is? That’s the root of the issue, not your political knee-jerks.

    Andrew

  67. 67
    Axel says:

    That all you got, Andrew? A spot of rather infantile name-calling. ‘You’re horrible because you’re spouting politics.’ Very disingenuous.

    I dilated upon the nature of giving in terms of the merits it reflects or does not reflect, and all you can do is peddle vapid cliches about class-warfare – as if it’s of no consequence that your Haves won that war a long time ago, and have now, through fathomless avarice, threatened the entire global economy. You’re shameless.

  68. 68
    asauber says:

    “Haves won that war a long time ago, and have now, through fathomless avarice, threatened the entire global economy”

    Scream louder, Chicken Little. I can’t hear you.

    Andrew

  69. 69
    anthropic says:

    Z 55

    Uh-huh. Millions of observations from weather balloons didn’t pick up the predicted hot spot, but now magically it appears. Sorry, I’m going with the data.

    And the models predictions of more warming than actually occurred are public knowledge. Trying to pretend they aren’t isn’t honest. Just like the recent desperate attempt to change the back data to eliminate the last 18 years or so of no warming.

    I see no reason why excuses, data manipulation, and denial of the evidence should justify $40 to $100 trillion in costs. Especially when you consider that even the British MET Office now admits the sun has turned quiet and folks should prepare for bitterly cold winters. Brrr!

    You remember the Brits, right? You know, the folks whose children wouldn’t know what snow is? LOL!

  70. 70
    Axel says:

    Ooooh My! That must be a terrible insult. Excuse me,Andy, while I go off and lick my wounds. You’re too cruel.

    Apart from the minor point of your being unable to rebut my words. Never mind. You probably gave it your best shot – since it would be an impossible task.

  71. 71
    asauber says:

    “Excuse me,Andy, while I go off and lick my wounds.”

    Don’t come back anytime soon.

    Andrew

  72. 72
    Zachriel says:

    anthropic: Millions of observations from weather balloons didn’t pick up the predicted hot spot, but now magically it appears.

    Tropospheric radiosondes have known problems, including incomplete coverage, and problems with drift.

    anthropic: Sorry, I’m going with the data.

    The historical radiosonde data is incomplete and of poor overall quality, so you can’t exclude the possibility of the tropospheric hotspot based solely on unhomogenized radiosonde data.

    The cited studies could certainly be wrong, but you have to respond to the substance of the studies, not merely reject them out of hand.

Leave a Reply