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)
English Sceptic Version Bible
Galatians 1:10
"For am I now seeking the approval of Mann, or of God? Or am I trying to please Mann? If I were still trying to please Mann, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Geoff Sherrington @ 7.59am: That would be a ecumenical matter.
Dec 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenese2
------------------------------------------------
A Father Ted classical reference!
Who says we are doctrinal dolts here. :)
Seriously, WRT Geoff's question, it seems that just about every branch of the Western Christian churches has endorsed the Green message over the last few years. The Catholics, being so dispersed, have been less Greenie than many of the others from a Head Office perspective. OTOH, some sections, e.g. the South American bishops who were advocating the warmist agenda in Lima, are very much in that camp. What the Pope comes out with in March will tell us whether they have officially fallen into line with most of the Protestants on this issue.
Infallibility of the Pope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WyDmdcPw7Uw
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.
Robert Christopher
I was quoting Cardinal Bellarmine who was writing (shortly) before Kepler's modifications to the Copernican hypothesis.
Mary ascends to heaven --
Let me state upfront that I am an atheist and only have an intellectual interest in this.
The VERY early Church taught mass resurrection -- no existence after death until final judgment. That was the situation of all human beings -- and Mary was fully human. Dead human beings were not in "conversation with God" until mass resurrection. Therefore prayers of the living directed towards dead human beings were pointless.
But the doctrine of "immediate resurrection and judgment" was introduced. Suddenly dead human beings were "in conversation with God". That meant that praying to such was a conduit to God's ear.
The Assumption of Mary was not really about Mary. It was actually a settlement of which of the above doctrines would hold sway in the church -- mass resurrection at the end of the world or immediate resurrection after personal death.
That is it in a nutshell. To deny the Assumption is to deny immediate resurrection -- which is to deny the spiritual efficiency of all the plethora of church saints.
Protestants threw out all the saints. Their exact position on mass resurrection versus immediate resurrection is somewhat unclear -- some saying one thing and some another.
Eugene WR Gallun
Nicholas Hallam on Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM
"the earth circles the sun ..."
It was also what Galileo believed to be reality, because he had seen moons of some of the planets and realised that not everything went around the Sun.
The reason Rome didn't want to push it at that time was because Galileo wanted to upstage Rome which, at that time was trying to juggle European politics. It is the usual, trying to get the optimum in individual freedoms, business and politics for all the major parties, and then a Wannabe Celeb tries it on. Not necessarily right or wrong, but it can affect a lot of people oblivious to the ego trips involved.
And it wasn't as though it was Galileo's original idea. Here is a full, if Roman, view:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
As a (somewhat lapsed) mackerel-snapper myself, I am frequently gobsmacked by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's willingness to get into bed with this new religion at any and all opportunities. Last time I visited Arundel Cathedral I was treated to the sight, not twenty feet from the memorial to St. Philip Howard, of a veritable shrine to the Goddess Gaia, constructed by local schoolchildren. The idea that Ecological virtue and Christian virtue might not be identically the same seemed never to have entered anybody's head.
One would expect an institution more than 2000 years old to have more of a sense of historical precedent...
@Uncle Gus: The 'Church' (whatever denomination) works in devious ways. The increasing secularity or multi-faith attitude of most state-run primary and secondary schools, reduces their chances of getting new punters for their decreasing congregations, so linking to another false belief that is also being force-fed impressionable pupils, may seem an alternative source.
It would be interesting to know if the green blob and the sky pilots share the same PR firms
Would that have been the Corpus Christi festival of flowers Uncle Gus? That goes back a hundred years or so, though I've no doubt the eco goblins may have got their teeth into it lately.
I've said it before, but I think it's worth repeating. I don't believe Francis is as much in the 'green' camp as he is in the 'people' camp. His first priority is not saving the planet, it's the welfare of people that is key to him. There is some overlap with the green agenda - if climate is affecting people (whatever the drivers may or may not be) then he wants to see help to those affected; But equally, his encyclical is (on current evidence) going to be on human ecology - the development of people is his core theme. So I would expect to see relatively little about climate, and much more about how people can be helped to develop. I may be wrong, I'll certainly be reading the final document very carefully, His writings rarely say what the media say they say.
At what point in its history has the RC church ever been slow to fill its own pockets at the expense of the poor? Tithes anyone?
If it managed to eliminate poverty, it would not be able to feel so good about relieving it.
The Green Gullibles are already claiming Francis as solidly in their camp. We'll soon know, of course, but the Vatican pretty much agreed to pimp global warming in the Wikileaks documents. I think the die is already cast, Kool-Aid replacing the sacramental wine for centuries to come.
Journalist: Is it true you believe that the Pope is infallible?
Cardinal Gibbons: Well, the last time I was in Rome, he called me 'Jibbons.'
Allan M - I'm no expert on the middle ages, but as I recall tithing was for the support of the churches (buildings), the clergy, and the poor. It was levied as a tenth of the gain, or profit, so was more like corporation tax than income tax, and usually paid in kind - so if you grew ten carrots, one went in tithe. Given that it was usually the tenants paying to the landowners (monasteries), it's not that different today, just the Church is rarely the landowner.
Rather than being a burden on the poor, it was a tax on the profits of the better off, and given in aid to the poor. Not very different to the way taxes are raised now, and for similar reasons.
@Cumbrian Lad: "just the Church is rarely the landowner"
You are having a laugh, the Church is still a very major landowner in the UK (at least in England and Wales) - at least 100,000 hectares in England alone, and stuff all of the profits on that goes back to the poor.
To me the Catholic Church seems to be rejecting a basic Christian tenet of honesty by endorsing dishonesty and fraud.
As fully paid up member of the catholic church, I would love to share the optimism of Cumbrian Lad above and Mike Jackson among other Catholics on here - lapsed or otherwise..
All you need to do is peruse any Catholic charity website and see the Mann Made Global Warming cancer has taken over their very souls.
Look at SCIAF.org, CARITAS.org, Christian aid.org, CIDSE.org or a multiplicity of so called Christian charities all singing from the same global warming hymn sheet.
In our parish we have an organisation called Ecocongegation.org which pushes the paganistic CAGW meme as settled science.
I would suggest that Mike and the Lad among others should visit http//openmythsource.com/2010/11/04/the-heliocentric-philosophy of the Gaia religion. By Henry Lamb.
It really is an eye opener giving us a look at hell on earth as promulgated by Al Gore, Maurice Strong and various catholic church elites, politicians, pretend prince's and ngo' s.
In other words, whilst giving our Jesuit communist leaning Pope the benefit of the doubt, I am in no way optimistic that he will deliver any encyclical which is not tainted by the global warming stain.
Possibly the Pope thinks he can use climate change as a fundraising tool
patrick healy: the web address should be:
http://openmythsource.com/2010/11/04/the-biocentric-philosophy-of-the-gaia-hypothesis-and-the-rise-of-global-green-religion/
Crikey, what a load of nut jobs we see here:
Jaques Cousteau wrote in a UNESCO publication:
“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
---------
The Global Biodiversity Assessment, has concluded:
“…an agricultural world, in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people…a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible.”
---------
Few of the 100 million congregants that are being influenced by the NRPE have any idea of the massive agenda behind the “action alerts” to which they respond. Indeed, most of the pastors, priests, and rabbis who respond to the NRPE have no idea that they are being used to advance a global governance agenda. Most sincerely believe that they are taking responsible action to help protect the environment. Until the evidence is reviewed, there is no way that the average church-goer could possible realize the sinister objectives of those who organized the program.
The organizers — James Parks Morton, James Lovelock, Robert Muller, Al Gore, Timothy Wirth, and many, many others — have been “enlightened” through their biocentric belief in gaia, and, therefore, they know what is best for the planet. They also know that the only way to protect the sacred gaia, is to control the people who are degrading her. The only way to control the people is through an omnipotent government that is, at this moment, consolidating its power into an evergrowing bureaucracy, now stretching around the globe, extending its tentacles into every corner of human life, creating de facto global governance. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment has reached into 67,300 churches and is drawing those congregations into the lair.
-----------------
I have long suspected that the western church inherited far too much of the Roman Empire, and not much original christian teaching. It's just a western power game, and we polloi have to keep the powerful in opulence for all eternity. Business as usual; no wonder the pope likes it!
It is all very strange: we are a carbon based life form wholly dependent on CO2; yet "carbon" has been transformed into a hate chemical. Then the "alarmists" are now seem rather reluctant to own up to the "Catastrophe" bit of CAGW, preferring to just champion AGW (albeit so severe that there will be local catastrophes = extreme weather events, rather than a global catastrophe where we all have to move to Antarctica). And most of those who vociferously subscribe to the 97% consensus don't appear to be scientists anyway. Uncritically hating the dependencies, extent and life of humanity is a modern world view which appears to be more akin to the Devil than Christ. Though that view is undoubtedly unfashionable.
I don't think I've ever come across anyone claiming that the catholic church knew Galileo was right all along and only imprisoned him for political expedience. Because that would mean the church was actively involved in a deception for political ends - which is far worse, and clearly less moral, than simply being incompetent and believing scripture despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
Mind you, since the church and CAGW activists have found a new common religion, perhaps the CAGW crowd can use this line in the future. In 2100, when people are discussing how wrong the CAGW activists were about thermogeddon, the activists can use the same line of defence - and claim that the environmental activists of the early 21st century knew all along that catastrophe wasn't likely, but it was expedient to claim that was the case to achieve their political goals.
I sometimes wonder whether people actually stop and think about the arguments they are putting forward.
As a Catholic, I am appalled that the Pope would even consider delving into the area of global warming. The Roman Catholic Church should stay well clear of science for one very good reason ... its treatment of Galileo for the crime of heresy in relation to Galileo's belief in the heliocentric theory, which contradicted Psalms 104:5 "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved."
The Roman Catholic Church got it so unforgivably wrong over Galileo's belief in the heliocentric theory. Despite Sir Isaac Newton establishing in 1687 the truth about the theory of Copernicus, it was only in 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, that the Roman Catholic Church repealed the ruling of the Inquisition against Galileo, admitting that the heliocentric theory was correct. That's right ... in 1992!!!!
How long would it take for the Roman Catholic Church to admit it also got it wrong about the UN's IPCC hypothesis - that carbon dioxide emitted from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change?
Spence_UK
I thought that was exactly what the church did.
A comprehensive survey of religious positions might well prove enlightening - where does Islam stand on this issue f'rinstance?
Thank you Alan M.
Yes it fairly makes your hair stand on end when you realise what the rationalist world is up against.
One obvious result of the year's of propaganda from NRPE is that a whole generation of clerics and educators have risen to positions of influence across the western world.
I sometimes despair for the future of my grandchildren.
I would urge many contributors on here - including our venerable Host to visit that website and weep.
Happy New year to all from Scotland.
To.me, as an Anglican, it is another example of the complete lack of direction - a lack of Faith - apparent in all of today's Churches.
Papal bull?
[snip - venting]
Salopian on Dec 30, 2014 at 8:10 PM
"You are having a laugh, the Church is still a very major landowner in the UK (at least in England and Wales) - at least 100,000 hectares in England alone, and stuff all of the profits on that goes back to the poor."
That is less than 0.77 %. So, over 99% of England is not owned by the Church. For an organisation that is over 1000 years old, and that used to be at the heart of national power, that is a small amount. As long as the land is well managed, there is no problem. The locals might even prefer to rent. If they are not 'rich bastards' it would be the only way to run a business.
Mervyn on Dec 31, 2014 at 4:05 AM
"... the Roman Catholic Church repealed the ruling of the Inquisition against Galileo, admitting that the heliocentric theory was correct. That's right ... in 1992!!!!"
Britain is untidy as well, like Berwick on Tweed:
http://northeasthistorytour.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/berwick-v-russia-and-other-unfinished.html
And what about "the incredible fact that the Second World War between the Allies and Germany did not technically end until the latter’s unification after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989-90."
Legality is not always reality! But it is, inevitably, costly: that's the reality!
This link, in an earlier post of mine, does put a different slant on history:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
It might be the 'View from Rome', but remember that the 'other side' does need to have its say, and I'm not even Catholic! Well, not yet, anyway!
I can remember being in year 7 and wondering at the disconnect between what I learnt in History (Stonehenge through to the Romans) and RI (learning about Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and the Egyptians as if it were History). Were they connected? They both used BC, so I guessed they were. But, in a way, they were worlds apart in the minds of some. And on my Geophysics MSc course, there were Physics and Geology graduates and the differences in approach would raise a laugh every now and then.
In Galileo's day, the Church had had philosophical and theological wisdom for centuries but, perhaps, was quite unaware of how much Scientific wisdom it had recently accumulated, through inquisitive clergy, and thought that the bigger picture needed to be unravelled, and not at the expense of the ordinary person. It is what Philosophers would have done. It is what Socrates would have expected.
Different disciplines do need time to assimilate. In Galileo's case, Rome was being 'a bit slow' because it needed time, and the intellectual change didn't affect the population in their general day to day lives.
To lurch from one theory that was wrong, to another that was quite likely wrong was not sensible, just as, in the 21st century, the climate sceptics are wary of claiming a theory, just to 'disprove' climate change. It is why our path is so hard to tread. If only Al Gore had not rushed out his propaganda, we might have had a greater understanding of climate, with less wealth wasted.
Science has invariably had conflicting papers published. What has changed is that they are being put in the public arena, with a mind to upstage the opposition in front of an uninformed audience. Instead, it needs to digested by those in the same and related fields before being put out as a glimpse of reality. I am fed up with so many headlines with 'may be' and 'it's possible'. Science should not be decided on a whim, by people who are scared, and led by 'leading institutions' such as the universities and the Royal Society.
It wasn't that everyone else was for Galileo, with the Catholic Church against. There was genuine discord amongst the scientists. Many of the early scientists were clergy, part of one of the established churches, and were probably were wondering what to do! The laity were like they are today: not fully understanding the new ideas or their consequences, and therefore easily taken in. Just look at some recent decisions: 'global warming', that Valium cures everything and that DDT is evil so we must ban it.
"The Roman Catholic Church should stay well clear of science for one very good reason ... its treatment of Galileo for the crime of heresy in relation to Galileo's belief in the heliocentric theory, which contradicted Psalms 104:5 "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved."
Galileo thought the Sun was fixed, but Rome was right that it moved. Historically, the churches administered to the poor, and they probably thought that philosophical ideas, though important, should not rock the boat, especially if Galileo was acting like a Martin Rees, Brian Cox and a Michael Mann, rolled into one. In those days, there was less wealth to waste.
NH "" 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?'
Let's break this statement of the Pope's down, to make it clearer. "Some statements (not necessarily all) ought to be supported by science". "'The statement that the earth is the centre of the universe' is a statement that should not be affirmed - by the Pope or anyone else - unless it is supported by science". This is because the Pope understands that statement as a statement of scientific fact, which requires such support.
You should be able to see that the Pope is not saying - what is in fact wrong - that no statement should be made unless it is supported by science. Science assumes repeatability - theology does not.
You understate the scientific case against the Assumption by saying it is not supported by science - it is clean contrary to science - that is part of the point.
Feet gone green? Need washing else all gang green. Lest all auld feet gang green, be gods, the sign the langsome stink.
==========
Stiglitz is a member of SocialistInternationa.org. They state on their website that they want nothing less than world government.
Sachs can be seen on Vimeo giving a speech at the Party of European socialists (PES). PES is associated with Socialist International.
Sachs' Earth Institute lists Geroge Soros as some kind of external advisor.
That the Pope would listen to rabid left-wingers who are most likely anti-religion is beyond belief.