Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics 703
HughPickens.com writes: The Telegraph reports that as the Vatican forges an alliance with the UN to tackle climate change, skeptics accuse Pope Francis of being deeply ill-informed about global warming. The Pope discussed climate change with Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, who then opened a one-day Vatican conference called "The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development". Organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, SDSN and Religions for Peace, the goal of the conference is to help strengthen the global consensus on the importance of climate change in the context of sustainable development.
But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate. "The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science. He's a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change. "The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age."
It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism," has traveled to Rome to try to influence a pope. "The sideshow envisioned by these organizations will not detract from the deep concern that Pope Francis has for the truth and how it relates to the environment," says Dr. Bernard Brady, Professor and Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas. "Pope Francis will probably follow his predecessor, Benedict XVI, recognizing the interrelatedness of climate change with other moral issues and calling for persons, organizations, communities, nations, and indeed the global community, to reconsider established patterns of behavior."
But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed "mistaken" advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate. "The Pope has great moral authority but he's not an authority on climate science. He's a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change. "The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age."
It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism," has traveled to Rome to try to influence a pope. "The sideshow envisioned by these organizations will not detract from the deep concern that Pope Francis has for the truth and how it relates to the environment," says Dr. Bernard Brady, Professor and Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas. "Pope Francis will probably follow his predecessor, Benedict XVI, recognizing the interrelatedness of climate change with other moral issues and calling for persons, organizations, communities, nations, and indeed the global community, to reconsider established patterns of behavior."
Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:4, Funny)
Don't worry. The invisible hand will fix it. Just like it's fixing the economy.
The only thing I don't like about this is that the fixing is of the veterinary definition.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:4)
Actually it will.
I seriously believe that Tesla's cars are beautiful electric cars and if I had enough money, I'd own one.
I also believe that Tesla's will get both better AND cheaper until more people (even most people) can afford them. Of course that also includes other manufacturers upping their electric car game too.
When superior electric cars (and the high range Tesla Model S's are superior) are cheap enough for everyone, people will flock to buy them.
Then we just need to build Nuke plants to power all these electric cars, shutter all the coal plants an viola! Problem solved.
Now you will argue that that won't happen, that its all pie in the sky, but I'm saying its inevitable -- given time. Because if we want to solve this problem without kneecapping the economy, its what HAS to happen.
Taxes, and rules and regulations are the things that seem like they'll solve the problem, but they really won't.
Technology WILL.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem?
People, and especially politicians, are afraid of change.
Remember when the 'odd' kid got picked on in elementary/middle/high school, even though they were often smarter/more creative? Just like that.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'problem' is that the current fossil fuel investors have many billions of their dollars sunk into those investments
They are not going not give up that investment without a fight
They are similarly committed to keeping the country from moving to nuclear power, solar power, or any other source of energy that does not directly leverage their investments
Oh, and the fossil fuel 'investors' are deeply invested in republican politicians as well
To them it is 'good business', to the rest of us it is a disaster
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
People, and especially politicians, are afraid of change.
People aren't afraid of change. Not only do people expect change, but they embrace it.
The internet fundamentally changed and disrupted a lot of things, from the way people get their news, to the way people get their entertainment like music, movies, and TV shows. I can watch a movie on the phone in my pocket. The only people afraid of those changes are the ones in charge of the old industries which supplied those things, who never adapted and are now in a position of increasing irrelevance.
Uber is another example. Regular people have widely embraced services like Uber, because they offer many advantages over traditional taxis, they are a welcome change. The major noise against Uber is coming, again, from the people losing money and business to them.
On the topic of alternative fuels in general, Toyota took over the hybrid market with the Prius, if you deny that people embraced that ugly thing then you're delusional. They are all over the road, and it's not because they are attractive vehicles, it's because people like the change that they represent. Tesla showed it further, even with a car priced out of reach of the majority of people I still see several Model Ss on the road every week, usually every day. There are plenty of unknowns with all-electric vehicles, like what happens if you find yourself in a situation where you don't have enough juice left to reach a charging station. That hasn't stopped people from embracing the idea and the change though.
Residential solar power is another great example. There are houses all over the place that have solar cells on their roof or on stands in their yard. People were not afraid of that change, when the price hit the right point they embraced it. They feel good because they're generating their own power for their own house, and it cuts down their electric bill to the point that it can pay for itself over enough time.
I don't know about you, but I haven't had a home phone for over 12 years. I had a few dumpy cell phones and since then I've had a few high-powered smart phones. I'm carrying a computer in my pocket more powerful than anything I would have built for home use when I had a home phone. I was not afraid of getting rid of my home phone, it was a welcome change. If someone wants to talk to me they can call me directly, not my house where I may or may not be. If they just have something quick to say they don't even need to call, they can just send a small text message. Or send me a picture. Or send an email, which I can also get on my phone. Or send me a link to a web page, which I can pull up no matter where I am.
These are not "changes" to be "afraid" of, this is what we call progress. The only people holding us back from continued progress are the ones who stand to lose money and become irrelevant. The reason why politicians appear to be afraid of change is because they are paid by the businesses who are becoming irrelevant.
Businesses are afraid of change, people are not.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
"1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited."
Matters on the type of fuel you're talking about. The US has coal reserves for hundreds of years. Even NG and Crude reserves to last a loooooong time, but they will continue to cost more and more to extract and refine.
"2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us."
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves. The vast majority of the rest is bought from Mexico and Canada. The largest of the insignificant provider nations is Venezuela. The amount of oil we buy from countries that, "Do not like us", is insignificant.
"3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing."
Our interest in Middle Eastern oil is due to the lack of oil reserves in western Europe. Even without any US demand on Middle Eastern oil, the US will have a continued interest in the region until Western Europe transitions off of crude.
"More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change. So, what is the problem?"
This is really the crux of it. So let's say that the Pope/Scientists are wrong. There is no global warming and any investment in improving vehicle efficiency, air quality, and use of renewable is a waste of economic output. Well, we still get more efficient vehicles, better air quality, and a bunch of jobs. So, no big loss.
On the other hand, say the Pope/Scientists are right, but we do nothing. We are at risk of creating a catastrophic level event that would dramatically alter life on the planet, and could result in the death of billions of people.
So option A, we possibly lose a percent or two off of economic growth. Option B, we die, and the economy no longer matters.
As you said, "So, what is the problem?"
-Rick
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
The US has coal reserves for hundreds of years
Keep in mind that the mining started with the really good anthracite coal, and has been moved steadily to lesser and lesser grades, with less energy per ton. If you look at the produced energy from coal, the US hit the peak back in 1998.
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves
This tertiary oil boom in the US, due to fracking, is a very temporary stopgap. Fracked wells have an incredibly steep decline rate, which means that after just a few years, the well stops producing in useful quantities, and you have to drill new ones. Pretty soon, they're going to run out of places to drill, especially the really good places where they started. The story for natural gas is similar.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:4, Informative)
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves. The vast majority of the rest is bought from Mexico and Canada. The largest of the insignificant provider nations is Venezuela. The amount of oil we buy from countries that, "Do not like us", is insignificant.
The major supplier is in fact Canada. Saudi Arabia and Mexico are essentially tied for second, followed by Venezuela, then countries like Ecuador, Colombia, and Russia. Imports from Canada and the Persian Gulf countries account for a little over half of our total imports.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pe... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:3, 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?
There isn't any, most reasonable people would agree with all of the above...
Then the global warming/global cooling/global climate change people go nuts and take it WAY to far. It becomes about money and power and redistribution of wealth more than the planet.
It is like the environmentalists who are AGAINST EVERYTHING!
The average person is so sick of it that he/she is just tuning them out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo... [forbes.com]
http://save-as.org/GreenNews/N... [save-as.org]
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo... [go.com]
And on, and on...
They
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so much the amount of disinformation spewed that separates Republicans and Democrats as it is what subjects the disinformation gets spewed on. When it comes to science, many Republicans seem to have made it their goal to spew as much disinformation on as much science as possible. I feel sorry for the pro-science Republicans who are left. It must be disheartening to see so much anti-science coming from your party.
(Disclaimer: Historically, I've sided with Democrats but have been more and more dissatisfied with them. I'm in the "nowhere land" between both parties where neither party seems to satisfy me and will likely be voting third party more and more.)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, then go ahead and explain it. As a European, they look quite indistinguishable. But it may be the distance that blurs it, so please, what do they differ in?
And please, don't mention petty crap like whether gays should marry, whether people should smoke weed or whether abortion should be legal. Try to find something that actually matters, not just bullshit to get people worked up over petty, unimportant feelgood crap.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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... [whitehouse.gov]
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... [msnbc.com]
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... [npr.org]
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... [cnn.com]
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone around who can find 2 denying Dems or 2 supporting Reps?
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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... [what-when-how.com]
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?
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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... [gop.com] )
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
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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... [whitehouse.gov]
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... [msnbc.com]
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... [npr.org]
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... [cnn.com]
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
I Think that just goes to show that they target different members of the population, not that they have real meaningfully different agendas. They almost always vote the same on things like domestic spying, invading foreign countries, etc. The only thing they really fight over is how to slice the pie.
Re:Different question (Score:4, Informative)
President Bill Clinton placed limits on CO2 and mercury emissions on Coal power plants and regulations that any new plant that were built include scrubbers to eliminate those products
President George W Bush rolled those regulations back in the first year of his Presidency
Since you seem intent to draw this far afield, I would take particular notice of President Obama NOT shoving a few hundred thousand more troops into the middle east while removing most of the existing troops as a valid difference between him and the prior rep President who seemed to have a fetish for 'boots on the ground', a gentle euphemism for getting US troops killed
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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.
Re: (Score:3)
As an American who agrees that the American view of the political possibilities is myopic, there is still a difference. To put it figuratively: one side thinks all kittens should be fed to vicious ravenous dogs to be maimed and devoured as the dogs see fit; the other side thinks there should be some limits on how much the dogs can maim most kittens and how many can be devoured in what circumstances, and further special protections for certain classes of kitten.
What do you mean, lets not feed kittens to the
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans scare me as well, but so too do the Democrats. Who thought turning over even more health care to the insurance companies was a good idea? They're the slimeballs who screwed it up in the first place. And try to get Democrats to understand the problem we'll have paying for all entitlements when they come due. They look at you like you are from Mars, claiming, by the way, the SS trust fund has x dollars in it. Really? The SS trust fund is merely an accounting device. The Democrats actually do think
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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.
The difference is that creationists deny science because of their faith. These guys deny science because of greed.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you picked #2.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden... [nasa.gov]
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to show the results of all your experiments proving climate change is not happening. The overwhelming evidence we have is that *is* occurring - so any disproof of this needs presenting far more than any more corroboration.
Which is how science works, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's a largely irrelevant question. The relevant questions are: what is going to happen in the future, what are the costs and benefits, can we intervene, how risky is intervention, and should we intervene. The science related to those questions is highly uncertain, and many of those questions are primarily about values, preferences, and economics, not climate.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
No he's correct, James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, stepped outside of his house in Oklahoma and observed, get this, snow. He was able to conclude on the basis of this observation that there was no global warming and certainly no human induce global warming.
He was also able to observe no decrease in the Ogallala aquafier level so Oklahoma will have water until the End-O-Times. And he was able to observe that the Moon has kept a steady distance from the Earth in his lifetime, so it will be there until the End-O-Times (scientists dispute this saying it moves away about 1.5 inches a year). And that he could see no relationship between the Great Apes and Man, so there is no evolution, and it has been this way since the Beginning-O-Times.
You should be proud to have such a scholar as head the Senate Committee.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (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... [nasa.gov]
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".
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound the people claiming that climate change is not real because it snowed in New England this winter. That's about as intelligent as claiming that no one in the world is starving because you can get in your car and drive to a grocery store down the street.
Re: (Score:3)
Allow me to quote from your link:
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
Ok, great... how much of that is man-made change?
You could read the report [www.ipcc.ch]
for yourself or you can look at a pretty graph [skepticalscience.com] that summarizes the findings.
What can we do about it if so?
There are a variety of strategies that we could try but the simplest, easiest, and cheapest solution is to apply a price to carbon emissions. Any economist can tell you that charging for emissions will reduce them.
What does that cost?
Very little, many of the economies with carbon emission taxes are outperforming their neighbours, who don't have emission taxes.
What does it cost to adapt to it rather than try and change it the other way?
Generally speaking, estimates of ada
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
Ahhh.... nope [independent.co.uk].
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The key aspect of the creation of man with respect to Catholicism is that man's soul was the direct creation of God. Not something that sprung from evolution or natural phenomenon.
Re: (Score:3)
given science really cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, or what's outside the universe
Yeah, it really is quite hard to explain answers to incoherent questions. Science can't even answer a simple math question like what do you get when you multiply 37 times the square root of giraffes?
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Big Bang theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Informative)
I do not see compelling evidence that slashing CO2 is a good course
The ocean hates you.
http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden... [nasa.gov]
"Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year."
But this seems the worst info to me:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-... [nasa.gov]
"Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 147 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2003, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 258 billion metric tons per year. "
Approaching half a trillion tons of ice *per year* being melted seems an astounding amount.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a tenet of the Church actually.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/... [vatican.va] :
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.
Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score:5, Funny)
It will be interesting to see the Heartland Institute's reaction to someone who is immune to suitcases filled with money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A picture is worth more than a thousand words: A brief history of gods [weknowmemes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, we're all fucked anyway. We've frittered already for too long.
It's a lot easier to address a 3F increase than a 6F increase. Drastic action is needed. It's not time for shoulder shrugging.
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Pope is more progressive than you are then you might be an extremist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They are against the death penalty.
Re: well... (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.
And India (Score:5, Insightful)
The four most populous countries use the death penalty and in total over 50% of the world population lives in nations where state aurhorized executions occur. Capital punishment is not unusual even among the worlds economic leaders. There are many good arguments against capital punishment but this isn't one. Instead cite 4% of those executed being innocent or the higher cost relative to incarceration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The four most populous countries use the death penalty and in total over 50% of the world population lives in nations where state aurhorized executions occur.
Note how the parent poster specified civilised. China, India and Indonesia are not exactly renowned for the quality of their justice systems. Then again, neither is the US.
Also, if you chuck the EU in there instead of having the countries separately (not an insane choice given there are common laws they must abide by in order to be members, including o
Re: well... (Score:3)
The Catholic Church generally supports universal free healthcare, as long as it doesn't pay for the Pill or abortions.
Re: well... (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.
This pope knows about Science (Score:5, Insightful)
If he can criticize the deaths caused by poverty or extremism, he can criticize global warming.
Does it matter if you are a sceptic or not? (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?
Re:Does it matter if you are a sceptic or not? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does it matter if you are a sceptic or not? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, to be on the safe side isn't it better to deal with a possible man made climate change now regardless of it's true or not?
No, because the magnitude of the problem determines what our response should be.
*If climate change is catastrophically serious, we need to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and immediately switch from coal to nuclear (as James Hansen advocates).
*If climate change is moderately serious, we can put resources into solar/wind/other technologies, and put them into production when they are viable (or somewhat before).
*If climate change is not serious, we can focus on improving the economy and living conditions of poor people, which by itself will reduce more serious pollution (like atmospheric sulfur and polluted rivers).
If we choose wrongly, our actions very likely will be counter-productive and take us farther from our goals.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, but there is no real consensus what the magnitude of the possible problem is. When lives are at stake you mostly plan for the worst case scenario, unless you are a cynic of course.
You're not thinking clearly. Preventing developing countries from building coal-power plants will kill people (unless there is a practical alternative to power, which in most cases there isn't). Making the wrong decision and overreacting will kill people. Making the wrong decision and under-reacting will also kill people.
Confused much? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Confused much? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh christ, not the 15/18 year bullshit. Several of those years are the hottest on record. This is what the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS state.
Re:Confused much? (Score:5, Informative)
NASA admits the warming since 1998 is NOT statically significant
You're the one who's cherry picking, because 1998 was a 2-sigma outlier when it happened. The same 1998 temperature is now the norm.
Religion and science (Score:3)
The Pope is just the person we need to settle once and for all the correct interpretation of the scientific evidence. Thank goodness we'll be spared the downward spiral into nearly religious zealotry that climate change debate was headed.
why does that surprise anybody? (Score:3)
The lines between communism/socialism and Catholicism/"conservative Christianity" have never been all that sharp to begin with: they both denounce competition and wealth, they both tend to be socially conservative in practice, and both believe that they know the road to salvation for all humanity and it's their job to impose it even on the unwilling. That is probably why those two ideologies hate each other so much.
One of those ideologies has taken over the Democrats, and the other has taken over the Republicans. They agree on the principle of compelling people against their will to do what they believe is good and moral, they simply disagree about who should be in charge and which irrational principles justify that. You and what you want is irrelevant to either of these groups; according to both of them, you are just a "stupid American voter" who needs to be tricked into doing the right thing for his own good (tricking people into doing the "right" thing is, again, a long-standing principle in both ideologies).
Why do the skeptics even get air time? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like members of the flat earth society getting top billing on all the news broadcasts.
Pope: "The Earth is round."
Skeptics: "How can you be sure? I paid $100 million to have bunch of people say it's flat!!"
Pope Attacked By Climate Change DENIERS (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed the headline.
This is not just a nitpick. Skeptics are people who reserve judgement or attack bad evidence. Pretending the evidence is bad doesn't make you a skeptic, it makes you a denier. As in "holocaust denier" or "evolution denier" or "Sandy Hook shooting denier".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For chrissakes, that was four hundred years ago. Jesus christ, is that the best defense of the lying sociopaths at the Heartland Institute, that one of the Pope's predecessors, centuries ago, screwed over an astronomer?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the church has been on the wrong side of a whole lot of science, but Galileo's predicament was largely his own fault, and had little to do with science. Giordano Bruno might have been a better choice for an example, although his BBQ wasn't entirely about his stance in science.
That said, the church also accepts natural selection, and when it's been faced with evidence of it's incorrectness, it does come around (eventually). T
Re: (Score:3)
Bruno was a mystic who thought the stars and planets had souls, and wrote books on magic. He was right about the infinite nature of the universe the way a broken clock is right twice a day.
No one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs. But, to hold Bruno up as an example of the Church's "anti-science attitude" (if you believe it has one) is false, as while yes he was persecuted, he was persecuted for his religious ideas (like denying the divinity of Christ, magic, etc) and not his scientific ideas
Sounds like... (Score:5, Funny)
Matters of Theology? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Earth has been warming since the Ice Age ended (Score:4, Interesting)
.
However, the rate of warming has increased, with a correlation to the increase of the warming gases.
Is the correlation 100%? No. However, if we wait until the correlation is 100%, then it will be too late to do anything about the problem.
On the other hand, even if global warming were not caused by humans, shouldn't we be trying to mitigate its effects anyway? Should we be planning for the effects of rising sea waters, instead of (as the skeptics want) just do nothing and let the waters rise?
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, even if global warming were not caused by humans, shouldn't we be trying to mitigate its effects anyway? Should we be planning for the effects of rising sea waters, instead of (as the skeptics want) just do nothing and let the waters rise?
Is that their claim? The seas have risen by something like 200m in the past 13000 years.
I thought their claim was that human-produced CO2 is a minor contributor and that the vapor feedback cycle is limiting, so humans should focus on adaptation to chang
Most of these people are not skeptics (Score:3)
Progress against global warming will start ... (Score:3)
When the monster you created turns on you... (Score:4, Interesting)
It was corporate interests that sold Americans on the idea that Capitalism went hand in hand with Christianity [nytimes.com]. I love the irony of Christianity arguing back. (It isn't just the pope, there have been some fundamentalist groups making the same basic argument recently).
Re:Pontifical Academy of Sciences (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.
Re:Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
To wit, New Pope is a Jesuit and worked as a chemical engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks
Much survived because of monks, but if my history is right (and it's probably not) the enlightenment came from knowledge that survived via the Arabs. Hence we have names like Algebra (from Al-Jabr), for example.
I am seem to recall that during the dark ages the Romans/Italians had around 2-5% literacy rate. Not much knowledge survived there.
There was progression by monks during the middle ages, notably time-keeping and eyeglasses. But I am not sure how much historical knowledge was retained by them. It might
Re: (Score:3)
Well first, you need to understand that monks copied or translated works. They didn't write history books, etc; so you're probably not going to find books penned by monks. Partly for the whole humility thing. So, for example while not exactly a history book, Beowulf. We have Beowulf because monks copied and preserved the story or wrote down the oral tale. That literacy rate you're talking about while harmful didn't stop the monks. The clergy was the literate of the "dark ages" (a misnomer but I'll still use
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the Catholic Church has been taken some stupid, incorrect positions in some fields of science doesn't mean they don't care about the sciences in general.
Re:Excommunicate the liars (Score:4, Insightful)
I strongly suspect that you will find most American and British conservatives are Protestants. Excommunicating them from the Catholic church would be a non-concept for them.
Re: (Score:3)
I strongly suspect that you will find most American and British conservatives are Protestants. Excommunicating them from the Catholic church would be a non-concept for them.
Well, maybe. Of the Republicans running or widely considered to be possibly running for President, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal
Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum are all Catholic. That's a pretty good chunk of the people considered to be actual contenders.
Re: (Score:3)
What is those Scientific questions may mean life or death for millions? Or prevent good stewardship of the planet, which is a biblical imperative?
Re:I agree with them (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.
Re: (Score:3)
What to do or not do about climate change is a moral issue, and therefore a religious issue. Science doesn't dictate human actions; it only describes consequences of actions. But obviously consequences should affect decisions.
If there are moral decisions to made over climate change, then religious leaders are obligated to look into the science behind it to make sure they have the base facts correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Corrupted Minds Will Say Anything (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.
Re:Most people don't understand the debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing we don't have to go to Soros for information on AGW.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the very important exception of now, when humans have dug up fossil fuels and burnt them in a mechanism never previously active in geological history. We have CO2 first, and now the heat's coming.
If something different is happening now, the results may be different.
The causal mechanism from CO2 to temperature is not derived from historical correlations but direct quantitative observation and physical experiments. The
You want the Pedophile Shuffler back? (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.
Re:Why don't they use their money for good? (Score:5, Interesting)
They do. In fact, many Catholic organizations, such as Dayton University divested themselves of their fossil fuel holdings and moved the money to green energy.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, the Heartland institute, a well known fossil fuel propaganda production facility, made baseless criticisms on the Pope, invoking several of their well known fallacies, lies and distortions.