Climate Change Debate: Pope VS Trump Supporters?

[YADA]

“Volvo Announces ‘Historic End’ to Combustion Engine, All Cars Going Electric”

ecowatch.com/volvo-electric-cars-2453719182.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=e8df0e85a9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-e8df0e85a9-85957569

It is interesting that Volvo is owned by China, which is keen on getting those EVs.

But just in the few days [or perhaps even hours] it takes to manufacture the batteries for those Electronic Vehicles pumps the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as driving a conventional vehicle for between 2.5 years on the small end and 8 years on the high end … so where is the real climate savings in that … because there is the CO2 discharged in the manufacturing of electricity to keep those batteries charged and then there is the disposal of those batteries once their useful life is finished … the Green alternative is not really that green

The manufacture of batteries pumps CO2 into the atmosphere just like driving a car for years and years … CO2 into the air

 

[Ender]

Who is in possession of the “best available evidence”? Is it not the world’s climate scientists? Who is best equipped to assess it? What do they (in aggregate) conclude?

Then let’s see just how good the “best available evidence” really is. If it really is good why are the temperatures read by weather stations, buoys, and satellites not just adjusted occasionally but continually? Why have “the world’s climate scientists” spent the last ten years trying to answer the question of “why has the warming stopped” only to now claim there was no stoppage? And how do we “know” this? Because the data - with the latest set of adjustments - says so. That is, the biggest climate question of the last decade is resolved by…changing the numbers.

What is the argument that all this should be taken seriously? How can scientists on the one hand claim that the “missing heat” was caused by (choose any one of the 60 or so scientific explanations given), and then turn around and say “ignore all that, the heat’s not really missing”? If these questions are to be taken seriously they require more than glib responses.

Ender

 

[LucyEm]

Then let’s see just how good the “best available evidence” really is. If it really is good why are the temperatures read by weather stations, buoys, and satellites not just adjusted occasionally but continually? Why have “the world’s climate scientists” spent the last ten years trying to answer the question of “why has the warming stopped” only to now claim there was no stoppage? And how do we “know” this? Because the data - with the latest set of adjustments - says so. That is, the biggest climate question of the last decade is resolved by…changing the numbers.

What is the argument that all this should be taken seriously? How can scientists on the one hand claim that the “missing heat” was caused by (choose any one of the 60 or so scientific explanations given), and then turn around and say “ignore all that, the heat’s not really missing”? If these questions are to be taken seriously they require more than glib responses.

Ender

LOL. So which is it? You are simply more expert, or climate scientists at large are perpetrating a conspiracy on the world?

The first group of scientists to debunk climate science will certainly win a Nobel prize! Where are they?

 

[holyrood]

That is rather rude. People with out degrees in theology have weighed in thinking they know more than the Pope what the limits of his authority are.

I’m sorry, but I disagree. It’s a legitimate question. Where does the Pope get the authority to speak on climate change? The OP hints that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Pope on climate change is a bad Catholic. I am pointing out that the Pope does not have expertise in the sciences. It is not his field of study.

The Church is not gagged in all areas where certainty does not exist.

Of course it is not ‘gagged.’ And nobody claimed it was. I addressed the OP’s suggestion that every good Catholic must agree with the Pope on climate change. In fact, the Pope has never been said to be infallible in every word he utters. Of course he’s free to say whatever he wants. But one does not need to believe every word that comes out of his mouth in order to be a good Catholic.

There are very clear instances when issues fall into that category, but the Pope merely saying something does not.

Even the possibility, much less the probability of life being put at risk is a moral issue. Prudence is still a virtue. Unless on has a moral certainty that an action is safe, the probability that it might be reckless should not be ignored

Think of the logical conclusion of such a statement. There is the possibility that electrical wiring can catch on fire or that a car can crash or that an avalanche can kill a mountain climber. If the Pope says we should no longer allow electrical wiring in our homes, are we now obligated to live without electricity?

You have moved from ‘even the possibility’ to ‘the probability’ that something ‘might be reckless.’ Are you applying this to climate change and suggesting that therefore we must all accept and act (in whatever way a given activist group or political party tells us to) on the belief that 1) there is climate change and 2) it is man made?

Prudence *also *requires that we don’t rush into foolish policy without carefully studying a matter, or rush into policies that are being pushed more for political agendas than for real science.

This whole argument has revolved around the idea that it is only a theory that man is contributing to global warming. I reject the premise that this must be proven. As long as the evidence exists that an action might result in harm to another, the burden of proof shifts to those who deny this to justify the action as safe. One does not need proof to set safety standards. If those standards are set based on best available evidence, those who wish to set those standards aside are the ones who must show the compelling evidence why they can be set aside safely.

Honestly, this sort of reasoning scares me. By this logic, anyone can put out any ‘evidence’ at all and now suddenly everyone is obligated to do what they say because there ‘might’ be some danger.

By this logic why aren’t we all being required to wear helmets and bubble wrap suits in cars? Why are kids still allowed to climb trees or ride bikes?

I believe that if someone wants societal wide major changes in behavior that greatly impact others’ lives–they better have some darn good proof, absolutely rock solid, to back up their attempt to make everyone change their behavior.

I don’t get to walk into my neighbor’s house and just tell them to throw out their TV because it MIGHT be a danger to them. And I definitely don’t get to tell them that now that I’ve spoken they must either do as I say or prove to me that their TV is not a danger.

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry, but I disagree. It’s a legitimate question. Where does the Pope get the authority to speak on climate change? The OP hints that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Pope on climate change is a bad Catholic. I am pointing out that the Pope does not have expertise in the sciences. It is not his field of study.

So do you read his document as resting on a claim of personal or institutional expertise and authority in the area of climate change? Or do you read him to be remarking on our obligations toward the environment, against a backdrop of scientific evidence that the environment is not well treated by man? And whether or not the Pope’s trust in climate scientists is well placed or not would not alter the message about our obligations. It’s not necessary to accept “A” is true in order to accept a statement such as “If…“A”…THEN…”. Even if the Pope himself accepts the truth of A.

 

[Ender]

LOL. So which is it? You are simply more expert, or climate scientists at large are perpetrating a conspiracy on the world?

I said nothing about a conspiracy. I simply explained the facts as they exist. If you think I am factually incorrect then offer a correction, but if not then deal with the situation as it exists. It is certainly reasonable to note that inasmuch as there is clear doubt about our ability to accurately measure the Earth’s temperature today, we should accept at least as much doubt about our ability to extrapolate it from the past or predict it for the future.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Who is in possession of the “best available evidence”? Is it not the world’s climate scientists? Who is best equipped to assess it? What do they (in aggregate) conclude?

I have always thought it ironic when people with less resources than the Pope and no expertise undermine him for his lack of expertise. Then they listen to and give credence to the strangest and most politically biased of internet videos and websites. I listen to the Pope as I am a Catholic, not a Republican.

 

[holyrood]

So do you read his document as resting on a claim of personal or institutional expertise and authority in the area of climate change? Or do you read him to be remarking on our obligations toward the environment, against a backdrop of scientific evidence that the environment is not well treated by man? And whether or not the Pope’s trust in climate scientists is well placed or not would not alter the message about our obligations. It’s not necessary to accept “A” is true in order to accept a statement such as “If…“A”…THEN…”. Even if the Pope himself accepts the truth of A.

Specify the document in question. The OP says:

The Pope and the Vatican, as well as many Priests, Deacons and Bishops throughout the world have called Catholics to take a stand against Climate Change. It is clear that they believe it is 100% Real, and needs to be fought.

This doesn’t sound like an if/then statement.

And the question of whether the EXPERTS are trustworthy or not is key here. However…I’m going back to what the OP hinted and what I personally addressed: *one must agree with the pope on ‘climate change’ in order to be a good Catholic. *

Sorry, but no. He set up a false dichotomy. Unless the pope spoke infallibly, unless it’s part of the magisterium, no, I do not need to take his word on this in order to be a good Catholic.

 

[Rau]

Specify the document in question. The OP says:

This doesn’t sound like an if/then statement.

I was referring to Laudato Si, but you knew that, right? It’s where the issue got started.

…I’m going back to what the OP hinted and what I personally addressed: *one must agree with the pope on ‘climate change’ in order to be a good Catholic. *

Sorry, but no. He set up a false dichotomy. Unless the pope spoke infallibly, unless it’s part of the magisterium, no, I do not need to take his word on this in order to be a good Catholic.

As I think I have said - noone is under an obligation to accept the Pope’s views about the reality or severity or cause of climate change. The Pope does believe the issue is quite real I’m sure - that is his judgement on the matter, and, given that prudential judgement, he draws conclusions some of which are of a moral character… If after due assessment you don’t accept the premise (a judgement of the prudential order) you can disregard his conclusions too.

 

[holyrood]

I was referring to Laudato Si, but you knew that, right? It’s where the issue got started.

As I think I have said - noone is under an obligation to accept the Pope’s views about the reality or severity or cause of climate change. The Pope does believe the issue is quite real I’m sure - that is his judgement on the matter, and, given that prudential judgement, he draws conclusions some of which are of a moral character… If after due assessment you don’t accept the premise (a judgement of the prudential order) you can disregard his conclusions too.

Then you are in agreement with what I said in the first place, in reference to the OP’s statements, not in reference to the Pope’s encyclical.

 

[pnewton]

Honestly, this sort of reasoning scares me. By this logic, anyone can put out any ‘evidence’ at all and now suddenly everyone is obligated to do what they say because there ‘might’ be some danger.

I was afraid someone would take this to a logical absurdity. When we are speaking of climate change, we are not speaking of a single house that has one chance in ten thousand of catching on fire. Yes, I said earlier that the preponderance of the evidence suggests we are warming the planet. I think it a great deal more than the preponderance of the evidence. Comparing this to incidents of low probability does not make sense, unless one believes global warming is not very possible. Only if one believes global warming is possible but highly unlikely, do these analogies make sense.

One cannot compare firing a shot in the wilderness to machine-gunning a house as to which is likely to kill someone by accident. Quite frankly, I have no argument to give to those who believe global warming is either a hoax, or that it is rather unlikely.

 

[pnewton]

So do you read his document as resting on a claim of personal or institutional expertise and authority in the area of climate change? Or do you read him to be remarking on our obligations toward the environment, against a backdrop of scientific evidence that the environment is not well treated by man?

I like the way you worded this. I think it separates the straw man of the Pope’s expertise from the teaching the Holy Father was giving. He is teaching prudence, not the buzz word “prudential”, but the cardinal virtue.

Setting aside the teaching of Pope Francis for one minute, is there any bishop, or recent pope that has said anything that contradicts what was said? Within the Church, is there some sort of dissent or dubia about Laudatio Si? Or has it been universally accepted, except by some of the laity. I would like to point out that Humanae Vitae had at least some dissent initially.

 

[Ender]

Yes, I said earlier that the preponderance of the evidence suggests we are warming the planet.

Surely you recognize that this is precisely the point at issue, and that you think the preponderance of evidence supports this claim is an opinion, not a fact, and it is this opinion that is disputed.

I think it a great deal more than the preponderance of the evidence.

And I think most of the “evidence” has simply been fabricated, such as the constant adjustments to the actual temperature data that are always changed in ways that advance the alarmist narrative. This is why incidents like the implosion of Mann’s hockey stick, the ClimateGate scandal at the Climate Research Unit, unsupportable data appearing in the IPCC reports all matters. If the “preponderance of the evidence” supports their position, why is there a need to resort to deceit?

Ender

 

[SuperLuigi]

It’s an acknowledgement of where expertise lies, not authority.

It’s a blind one. Do you believe the “experts” on gender identity?

It is hubris to believe we can all just “analyse the data”.

No it isn’t. It’s just lazy to believe all of the “experts” at face value. And many of the “experts” you appear to reference in your comment are not, in fact, experts at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA

 

[Rau]

I said nothing about a conspiracy…

 

[Rau]

…And I think most of the “evidence” has simply been fabricated…

So how do you assess the actions of the world’s climate scientists? Sounds like they are perpetrating a conspiracy and you are calling them out? Why are they doing this? Are there no honest scientists who can expose the conspiracy?

 

[Ender]

So how do you assess the actions of the world’s climate scientists?

I don’t speak of “climate scientists” as if they were a homogeneous group. One of the first myths that needs dispelling is that 97% of them believe in MMGW. They, just like us, are all over the map on this thing.

Sounds like they are perpetrating a conspiracy and you are calling them out?

Again, I said nothing about a conspiracy. I have never made that charge. What I have done is simply point out behavior that is transparently dishonest, and raise questions as to why it is (a) essentially ignored, and (b) thought necessary by those who engaged in it.

Why are they doing this? Are there no honest scientists who can expose the conspiracy?

I don’t speculate on why people do things; it is enough to address what they have done. Take the latest NOAA data modifications. For over a decade the hottest topic in climate science was to discover an explanation for the hiatus in warming, yet suddenly we are told…there was no hiatus, and all that was necessary to reach that conclusion was to change the historical data. Perhaps you can accept that explanation, but I am a more than a bit skeptical.

I’ve asked this before: given all the effort and money that has poured into “climate science” over the last several decades, how is it that we still can’t even do something as simple as take thermometer readings without having to “adjust” the results? And why in the world should we accept explanations that are little more than “just trust us”?

Ender

 

[robertmidwest]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2666&pictureid=19098

Saw this when I was out and about today. Just had to take a picture. Seems like they have their priorities straight.

 

[Rau]

I don’t speak of “climate scientists” as if they were a homogeneous group. One of the first myths that needs dispelling is that 97% of them believe in MMGW. They, just like us, are all over the map on this thing.

There are in fact a number of studies finding 97% of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed jounrnals in the climate science space agree with MMGW. A consensus of those studies (John Cook, 2016) puts the result in the range 90-100%. Political leaders in the vast bulk of the world accept this conclusion - notwithstanding the strains it puts on their budgets, the opposition of powerful industrial organisations, the transitory impact on living costs and on. [Even scientists within Exxon report they concur with the scientific consensus.] Your unsubstantiated assertion that the scientists are “all over the map” is “an appeal to fake experts” - by sampling scientists with less relevant expertise one can manufacture a picture of dispute. But the reality is that the endorsement of MMGW increases with increasing expertise in climate science.

skepticalscience.com/graphics/Expertise_vs_Consensus.jpg

youtu.be/pEb49cZYnsE

youtu.be/7d8PwPHMKEw

Again, I said nothing about a conspiracy. I have never made that charge. What I have done is simply point out behavior that is transparently dishonest…

Given what we know we know from publicly published, peer-reviewed works - one would think you might offer an explanation for what you conclude is dishonesty, and the near unanimous position of those actually expert in the field. Or perhaps you are missing something in your understanding?

I don’t speculate on why people do things; it is enough to address what they have done.

I’m not sure if that is hubris (whereby you assume that you must fully understand the subject matter), or whether that position appeals because it enables you to simply make assertions that in all likelihood neither you nor readers (we are all non-experts) can assess.

And why in the world should we accept explanations that are little more than “just trust us”?

If a near unanimity of the experts in a scientific field hold a common position, I think the better question is “why would we take a contrary position?”. If your answer is that they are dishonest - then I think you ought to offer some basis in support of that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Rau;14768510]There are in fact a number of studies finding 97% of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed jounrnals in the climate science space agree with MMGW. A consensus of those studies (John Cook, 2016) puts the result in the range 90-100%. Political leaders in the vast bulk of the world accept this conclusion - notwithstanding the strains it puts on their budgets, the opposition of powerful industrial organisations, the transitory impact on living costs and on. [Even scientists within Exxon report they concur with the scientific consensus.] Your unsubstantiated assertion that the scientists are “all over the map” is “an appeal to fake experts” - by sampling scientists with less relevant expertise one can manufacture a picture of dispute. But the reality is that the endorsement of MMGW increases with increasing expertise in climate science.

No it isn’t.

Given what we know we know from publicly published, peer-reviewed works - one would think you might offer an explanation for what you conclude is dishonesty, and the near unanimous position of those actually expert in the field. Or perhaps you are missing something in your understanding?

Most of the “97%” of papers didn’t even take a position on MMGW. So yes, that’s pretty basic dishonesty.

I’m not sure if that is hubris (whereby you assume that you must fully understand the subject matter), or whether that position appeals because it enables you to simply make assertions that in all likelihood neither you nor readers (we are all non-experts) can assess.

You don’t have to have a degree in atmospheric science to understand what is going on here.

If a near unanimity of the experts in a scientific field hold a common position, I think the better question is “why would we take a contrary position?”

Because nearly every single climate model made by even the remotely qualified scientists has been wrong, for one. For another—obvious political collusion in academia.

If you think this is such a problem, Rau, then give up your first world living status and all of your rights to environmental professionals like me.

That also means no more air conditioned Churches in North America in the summer.

If your answer is that they are dishonest - then I think you ought to offer some basis in support of that

We do offer basis of support. Problem is yourself and others don’t listen. The question is why----is it because as Catholics some of you have to have that one pet issue of the Western left you agree on in order to save face in polite society?