Bishop Hill A salvo of silliness
Dec 29, 2014 Greens The Pope, it seems, has decided to involve himself in the climate debate, apparently because he wants to ensure that the 2015 Paris summit is a success (if you can call condemning millions of people to destitution "a success"). Via Andy Revkin I also learn that the Pope's new-found enthusiasm for green issues was the result of a workshop of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the middle of last year.
The proceedings of the workshop have been published online and they make interesting reading. For example, the list of attendees tells a story in itself, with familiar names such as Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Martin Rees, Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz. There was also Daniel Kammen, the editor at Environmental Research Letters who is threw scientific integrity out of the window in a bid to prevent John Cook's fictions from being exposed. Needless to say, there were no familar names who could be put in the "global warming not a catastrophe" camp.
All of the talks are available online too, both in video format and in print. I've looked at a couple of them in brief.
A was amused by Schellnhuber's with its allusions to "insidious" changes in the jet streams and wondered where his science was. Does the Pope really want to have people presenting the latest cockeyed hypothesis to him as if it were settled science?
But best of all was Peter Wadhams. You have to say that for the Pontifex to be taking advice from a man who is seen as a bit of a fruitcake by both sides of the climate debate does make the Vatican look a bit silly. And Wadhams' presentation doesn't disappoint either, ending with this salvo of stupidity:
...a common view is that, morally and economically, we must reduce our carbon emissions at a rapid rate in order to save the world from dangerous climate warming. I wish that I could agree with this view but my own conclusion, based only on unconsidered Arctic feedbacks, is that even a rapid reduction in CO2 emissions will not work in time, so we must seriously and urgently consider emergency methods which could slow down the rate of warming and give us time to change to a new paradigm of living on this planet – that is, the use of geoengineering techniques, repugnant as these are to many people.
Reader Comments (130)
Mike Jackson
This is from Cardinal Bellarmino's letter to Foscarini on Galileo's claim in favour of Heliocentrism (Bellarmino was charged by Pope Paul V to investigate Galileo):
"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers."
http://inters.org/Bellarmino-Letter-Foscarini
You may think that the Vatican had already accepted heliocentrism as fact but I read this differently. The church was prepared to accept heliocentrism as a useful tool (or instrument) which simplified calculations but which did not necessarily correspond with the facts which they would continue to believe coincided with the scriptures until there was a demonstration of the impossibility.
What do you expect?
That a believer in God should be rational when it comes to AGW?
Someone should have a word in his ear about the company he keeps.
When I see remarks like "the Pope is way out of his depth" (on the world stage -no less) and "the Pope gets sillier ever day" it indicates a truly naïve perception of global politics and its premier league players.
How can one believe for a minute that the Pope and the College of Cardinals cannot see what is obvious to all the commentators here (even the trolls), that the CAGW narrative is ideologically driven? Do you think that the creed of the universal church is going to be at all subordinated to the dictates of a UN convention, to which it is not a signatory and therefore not subject?
If you just list the subjects discussed at the seminar you can see the priority theme is the interests of the developing world, where are found a large number of the shepherd's 2.1b flock and whose interests need protecting as Golf Charlie, Mike Jackson and others have pointed out.
The Popes concern is "the state of our climate AND the tragedy of social exclusion".
The Pope is going to Paris to support the position of China, India and the developing nations against the western malthusians. Who could have imagined anything else? Hence only the climate theologians (Orestes, Wadhams & Co) were invited to the party on the principle of "know thine enemy".
Joseph Stalin sardonically asked (in 1935) "How many divisions has the Pope?".
Well, where is he and his divisions now? - We still have a Pope!
Don, why must a believer in God not be rational? There are certainly non-rational reasons for believing in God, in the same way that there are non-rational ones for believing in 'science'. Rationality is not exclusive to one or the other.
Diogenese2
When I said that the Pope was out of his depth I was referring not to global politics but to epistemology as was clear from the context. As a matter of fact I think he is out of his depth in global politics too but I would not have stated that without argument.
I'll wait and see.
This Pope is no fool.
Considering the Copenhagen Accords were to have "rich" nations give "poor" nations money in return for not industrializing, I'd expect this Pope to want to make this a 'one-way' deal.
[snip- O/T]
The Catholic Church has long been criticized for favoring tradition and papal edicts over the authority of the Bible. In recent decades this has been reversing. Pope Francis should heed Matthew 7:15-20
In modern language, pseudo-scientists will appear to be pleasant intellectual types, who know what they are talking about, but at the core they believe in harmful political ideals that will only destroy. You can distinguish the pseudo-scientists, as they will incapable of making accurate predictions and be constantly spouting on about things of which they have no understanding, like moral philosophy and economics. If these pseudo-scientists do not realize the error of their ways, they will be going to hell.
All discussion concerning Heliocentrism was superceded, by the announcement by Real Climate scientists, that the sun does in fact shine out of (Nobel Prize Winner) Michael Mann's arse.
Anyone who disagrees, is a heretic, and must be excluded from any scientific debate.
The fact that Michael Mann can't get the solar panel working, sewn so carefully, inside the lower rear panel of his underpants, just proves that big oil, is the devil's spawn.
Catholicism has specialized, for centuries, in the art of instilling shame and guilt in its victims, even declaring pride to be a sin. It is perfectly consistent to shame humans as destroyers of the Earth and to shame them for earning wealth by being productive. Proud, productive humans are difficult to rule. Humiliating and shaming them is the first step to robbing and ruling them.
Nicholas Hallam @ 4.28: The Pope's words quoted by Cumbrian Lad @ 3.08 imply that, for a "scientific Hypothesis" to be included in a doctrinal encyclical it has to be irrefutable - a consensus (even 97%) is not good enough. To some extent this reflects scepticism within the Vatican of CAGW but in any case - do you really believe the Pope is going to endorse any of the core beliefs of godless environmentalists and support their position in Paris?
You will see who is out of their depth by the bubbles.
If his god is as strong as he claims he need only pray for the planet's salvation ans his god will save us.
Sadly, like all other gods including CO², his god does not exist and he knows it. Both the religion of gods ans co² are just that, pagan beliefs.
I wonder if any of the alarmist attendees went to confession after the workshop?
I'm sure the penance for their sins should have been more than 10 'Hail Marys'!
Diogenese2
There is no such thing as an irrefutable scientific hypothesis. For a hypothesis to have any empirical content it must have consequences that are inconsistent with conceivable observations.
My argument about the Pope was that he seemed to be conceding in the quote that he should not affirm anything that is not supported by science and my point was that this ruled out most of Catholic doctrine (which is not supported by science but by scripture, tradition, authority, etc). If his point was rather that no scientific theory can ever be shown to be true then I apologise. He is correct about this. Though I'm not sure that this is the correct reading.
Organizations given to predilections (e.g. the Catholic Church, the BBC, Penn State, Parliament, the House of Lords) seem to lean towards climatological catastrophe. The desire to exert power over the innocent, I suppose.
Will we see a windmill in St Peters Square replacing the obelisk?
Practically all other christian denominations, and other religions, do not accept the infallibility of the pope. He's outnumbered. :)
so the vatican push windmills and the mafia invest in them. sounds about right.
"Of course now that 2015 is nearly here, he moved the year to 2020. I wonder what he will do in 2019 if his 2020 prediction also fails, will he proclaim 2030 the year, 2060?"
is there a website that collates climate scientists predictions and measures them up against reality ?
would be a handy tool
Nicholas Hallam - "My argument about the Pope was that he seemed to be conceding in the quote that he should not affirm anything that is not supported by science and my point was that this ruled out most of Catholic doctrine (which is not supported by science but by scripture, tradition, authority, etc)."
How can you possibly understand the quote as conceding that?
As you point out, most of Catholic doctrine is not based on science. That doesn't prove it's false or meaningless. Science is based on the absolute uniformity of Nature - that fundamental natural laws are fixed and unalterable. Most forms of Christianity however hold that God is omnipotent - and that as the One Who maintains the physical world in being, He can (and occasionally does) suspend the operation of these laws. In saying that he should not 'affirm anything that is not supported by science', the Pope is clearly talking about repeatable scientific observations.
Cumbrian Lad "Don, why must a believer in God not be rational?"
"God of the gaps" says it all.
Each increase in our knowledge diminishes the role of God.
Just like the expanding universe if you extrapolate....
I think that an alliance between the catholic church and the UN might well
benefit both parties but it is definitely not in the interests of anyone else.
Especially the third world.
This calls for bold new vision. Handyman needed to matchmake Anne Widdecombe to the pope.
Though, personally, I hope the Pope keeps out of it. The last time a Pope intervened in a major scientific controversy to support the popular view, it wasn't a great success.
The poor pope take refuge in another made up Eco religion.Resorting worshipping false gods.
My Church the Catholic Church under attack from endless peadophile scandals ,the internet,and ISIS.
Nicholas Hallam - "My argument about the Pope was that he seemed to be conceding in the quote that he should not affirm anything that is not supported by science and my point was that this ruled out most of Catholic doctrine (which is not supported by science but by scripture, tradition, authority, etc)."
How can you possibly understand the quote as conceding that?
I repeat the quote:
" If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do."
Whereas it will do to affirm the Immaculate Conception, to take one example, though this has even less support from science?
"do you really believe the Pope is going to endorse any of the core beliefs of godless environmentalists and support their position in Paris?" --diogenese2
Yeah, I do. Did you read the Wikileaks documents from the Vatican?
"'So you will know them by what they produce.'" --Kevin Marshall
Like the 10-10 video, the biofuel holocaust, and Greenpeace terrorism.
'Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015. In subsequent years, the ice-free window will widen, to 2-3 months, then 4-5 months etc, and the trends suggest that within 20 years time we ma'y have six ice-free months per year'. Peter Wadhams July 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe
Highly unlikely, although in a normal age of rational human logic, such an eventuality would be greatly welcomed, but we regrettably live in none such.
Don K - "God of the gaps" says it all. Each increase in our knowledge diminishes the role of God.
Firstly, I know of no current Catholic theologian that uses the 'god of the gaps' approach, and I doubt that's been mainstream for hundreds of years.
Secondly, each increase in our knowledge just shows us how much we (increasingly) don't know.
Perhaps people are missing the fact that the organisation that the post is about is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church takes science so seriously it actually, (unique among religions) has an academy of science to advise it. Now whether the right scientists are part of that is moot, and really the topic we are supposed to be discussing.
Allan M - "Practically all other christian denominations, and other religions, do not accept the infallibility of the pope. He's outnumbered. :) "
I know your one-liner was in jest, but the last time I looked at the figures Catholics outnumbered all other christian denominations added together!
And finally God spake unto Moses thus “when you’ve nailed one through ten, I’ll give you the other fifty.” Then God did turn to Gabriel and sayeth “I’ve a funny feeling this is going to take a while”.
It may not be a real surprise to the Catholic church but mankind hasn’t really been following the rules for a long time or indeed, ever. The only times religious leaders get a good grip on the populace is when they break more of the rules than everyone else. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition but the plebs soon learn to do as they’re told under one. So unless the new Pope is going to form the Vatican equivalent of ISIS, who’s going to do as they’re told?
The Pope, Obama, Al Gore, Prince Charles, Emma Thompson, Leonardo Dicaprio, Bob Geldof, Naomi Oreskes and Elvis could take to the stage and demand we all cut our CO2 and we’d all say “sure, tomorrow, next week, sometime”… well ok most would say “eff off you losers” but you get the idea.
Why, when we still haven’t mastered rules one to ten would they expect better success with number eleven? It just seems to be one more cobble on the road to irrelevance.
Between Liberation Theology, Socialism, and now Gorebull Warming, I think they are suffering from Comminess.
Is hell where Kevin Trenberth's missing heat can be found? If so, there are some global warming alarmists, who ought to be encouraged to go there and look.
'The one leader of the Church is ....and in no way can the Pope of Rome be leader thereof....'. Just another Argentinian, I'm afraid.
I get annoyed by these discussions about the center of the Universe...
Noone has any idea where the center of the Universe is. There's no reason to think it's the Sun either.
And the Bible doesn't say where it is either.
The care of creation is a doctrinal issue
Whilst I have (more than a little) sympathy with folk having a little fun at the foolish utterances of assorted clerics - the "campaigning environmentalists" continue to sell their snake oil and lies as universal panaceas for problems both real and imagined, crafted to align with the target audience's requirements for copy 'n paste fresh "policies" .
That list of "advisers to Francis" when the motivation of the members is inspected looks like something from medieval Rome or Constantinople. At the moment Francis & Bartholemew seem to be good buddies.....
I'd add that if windmills and solar panels resemble anything it's medieval indulgences :-) something that Francis must be aware of.
Has anyone here noted actions by leaders from other religions all over the globe?
I have not.
It is not my specialty, but I thought it might be interesting to compare.
Geoff Sherrington @ 7.59am: That would be a ecumenical matter.
Geoff Sherrington
That'd be this
I know your one-liner was in jest, but the last time I looked at the figures Catholics outnumbered all other christian denominations added together!
Dec 29, 2014 at 11:07 PM | Cumbrian Lad
Not quite what I said. Don't forget the muslims and the hindus and the buddhists and the taoists and the shintoists (sic?) and the…
Who needs a consensus anyway?
Nicholas Hallam
Forgive me for not pursuing the Galileo subject.
As I said, I have no further comment to make though I did reply to your reply to me.
We can go on for hours selecting the writings of various Church Fathers to bolster whichever position we care to take. I'd rather not stray any further from the prime topic of this thread.
This is just another facet of the socialist leanings of the modern church. My local incumbent is also a green councillor, and he says more about about climate change than about God even when he's in the pulpit.
Eli Rabett
The care of creation is a doctrinal issue
Yeah and looking out for your own interest.
PS another quickly
As a lapsed Catholic Denier
do the Vatican finances have any interests in Gas and Oil exploration
or Big Oil Middle Eastern properties.
Is the Pope a catholic or a dope?
This pope "a dope" silly populist PR spin.
Cover all the latest Scandals in the Catholic Church.
His predecessor took early retirement.
Careful might find myself hanging off Blackfriers Bridge
PS allegedly.
This Pope is just a man, like every other pope. The Vatican is like any institution: Deeply flawed.
He and the Vatican are making a grave error in their approach on science and are falling into the trap Augustine warned about regarding science and religion but from an unusual angle:
He is not simply making Christianity look foolish by pushing an anti-science biblical interpretation to the informed. He is making Catholics look foolish by supporting a foolish interpretation of science pushed by secularists who largely dislike the Church and Christianity.
Another report on the subject:
"The Vatican apparently now has been infiltrated by followers of a radical green movement that is, at its core, anti-Christian, anti-people, anti-poor and anti-development. The basic tenets of Catholicism — the sanctity of human life and the value of all souls — are detested by the modern pagan environmentalists who worship the created, but not the creator."
Pope Francis Errs In Linking Church To Green Movement @ Investors.com
Nicholas Hallam on Dec 29, 2014 at 3:53 PM
"the earth circles the sun ..."
But it doesn't! The Earth's orbit, in a Newtonian model, is an ellipse, not a circle.
A layman might think it was unimportant but, to a Physicist, it is the difference between the possible and the impossible.
And to those in Galileo's time, it was also important because circular motion was restricted to heavenly bodies, hence the planets moving in circles, within circles, with circles etc! Objects on Earth were not 'heavenly and moved 'naturally', not in a straight line, but in a sort of bendy path, towards the ground. :)
So, Rome, having a few Philosophers around, I would expect, and being cautious, made the right choice. My understanding is that they did not want Galileo promoting his idea as reality. We still don't know what that is, but now, at least many of us know that we don't know! It was not that he could not discuss it in academic circles. Hec wanted to be a Celebrity! And at that particular time there were international tensions involving Rome, which was also a political power, and several other countries (Spain, the Low Countries?) and Rome wanted to sort out a few political issues before it started with such a big issue as the reinterpretation of 'physical laws' that originated in the distant past (Ancient Greece?) and the distraction might have led to the political issues turning into a European catastrophe.