Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness

[WanderAimlessly]

Another shot across the bow of the Secular Relativist lft by Cardinal Pell

Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness
Cardinal George Pell on the latest hysterical substitute for religion.
Interview by Michael Gilchrist | January 2008

In the debate over the theory of global warming, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney is a decided skeptic. His forthright reservations about the claim of catastrophic man-made climate change have made him a target for criticism in Australia. CWR talked to him about the controversy.

Full Story

 

[manualman]

I wish I could say it so well!

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Makes me almost want to move to Australia

 

[ilovekittens]

This is kind of a silly article, and I think the good Cardinal is wrong. I’m plenty Catholic, and I believe global warming is a serious issue that should not be neglected. It’s not a “pagan” or “hysterical” substitute for religion, for me, and it’s rather insulting for the article to suggest such. In fact, my own Catholic beliefs tend to reinforce my concern about the issue. If unfettered global warming continues, then it is very likely there will be bad consequences for many people on the planet, and, as always, the poor will suffer most. This is a social justice issue. To say that the basic principles of global warming are still undecided by climate scientists reflects ignorance on the part of this irresponsible Cardinal.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

This is kind of a silly article, and I think the good Cardinal is wrong. I’m plenty Catholic, and I believe global warming is a serious issue that should not be neglected. It’s not a “pagan” or “hysterical” substitute for religion, for me, and it’s rather insulting for the article to suggest such. In fact, my own Catholic beliefs tend to reinforce my concern about the issue. If unfettered global warming continues, then it is very likely there will be bad consequences for many people on the planet, and, as always, the poor will suffer most. This is a social justice issue. To say that the basic principles of global warming are still undecided by climate scientists reflects ignorance on the part of this irresponsible Cardinal.

Wrong!

The good Cardinal is correct. Man Made “Global Warming” is just one of the Mantra’s of the Secular Relativist’s Gaia cult mentality.

 

[ilovekittens]

Wrong!

The good Cardinal is correct. Man Made “Global Warming” is just one of the Mantra’s of the Secular Relativist’s Gaia cult mentality.

I don’t think so. I will not even attempt to restart the argument here, as it seems global warming has been played to death on this board, and when people’s minds are closed on the subject, arguing is not likely going to open them.

But I think it is very, very incorrect to say that global warming is a “secular relativist” issue. As I said before, I am a practicing Catholic, and I think a good one, and I believe firmly that global warming should be taken seriously. So there.

 

[steveandersen]

Wrong!

The good Cardinal is correct. Man Made “Global Warming” is just one of the Mantra’s of the Secular Relativist’s Gaia cult mentality.

prove it

Like ilovekittens I’m neither secular, relativist, nor a member of the cult of Gaia.

I am however aware of the effect of CO2 on IR emissivity and I can do an energy balance.

As Svante Arrhenius observed over a century ago “We are evaporating our coal mines”

 

[LRThunder]

Global warming is a serious issue, but it isn’t the end of the world if we don’t ratify the Kyoto treaty like we’re led to believe. The world isn’t going to go through an ice age tomorrow contrary to what the movie “Day After Tomorrow” claims.

We do need to be good stewards of the Earth, but Wander is also correct that there are those who are elevating the planet to a near deity and that’s a no-no.

 

[Joe_5859]

prove it

Alright Al Masetti, where are you?

Actually, I think the burden of proof lies with those who advocate man-made global warming. If we are to take the claims seriously enough to legislate it, there should be conclusive proof.

I don’t think Cardinal Pell is trying to dismiss all those who care about the environment as “hysterical”. I think that the current situation necessitates he use strong language to pull people back a little bit so that they look at the issue critically rather than accepting global warming as dogma.

I don’t think the cardinal is advocating that we not listen to the proponents of the global warming theory, he is simply asking that we not shut down the debate, as many are wont to do. We need to listen to both sides. Many refuse to do so. This is not how scientific progress works.

The fact that many scientists were touting “global cooling” 30 years ago and are now saying the opposite at the very least should give one pause before accepting their claims.

And, of course, I issue the disclaimer that refusal to accept the global warming theory (and it is still just a theory) does NOT mean that I would advocate not protecting the environment. Of course we must be good stewards of our resources. I just have my doubts about whether this is really the best way.

 

[system]

Alright Al Masetti, where are you?

He’s in New Jersey, I think, where, incidentally, it has been 30 degress above the normal temperatures for most of the last few weeks.

 

[whatevergirl]

prove it

Like ilovekittens I’m neither secular, relativist, nor a member of the cult of Gaia.

I am however aware of the effect of CO2 on IR emissivity and I can do an energy balance.

As Svante Arrhenius observed over a century ago “We are evaporating our coal mines”

I was discussing this with my husband last night, not this thread, but global warming. He is also of the belief that it is nowhere near as man made as some people would have us believe in Washington, and on the media. He said, take the ice age for example. The great lakes were created by the ice age, there was no man made anything that caused the ice age, and those glaciers are still in existence from the ice age. Global warming exists, but there are cyclical changes that have gone on for thousands of years, that explain much of it. I personally disagree with my husband (sorry honey ), but much of what he says makes good sense.

Just some food for thought.

PS; Oh, I should read again through this thread–how is this related to pagan emptiness?

 

[Joe_5859]

PS; Oh, I should read again through this thread–how is this related to pagan emptiness?

You have to read the article linked to in the OP for that. I think the title is meant to be provocative. Here’s the relevant portion of the article which was likely the inspiration for the article headline:

CWR: Would you see the whole global warming mania as having overtones of a new religious movement filling the vacuum in a post-Christian culture?

Cardinal Pell: It is true that some of the more hysterical and extreme claims about global warming appear symptomatic of a pagan emptiness, of a Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature.

Years ago I was struck by the fears that middle-class kids without religion had about nuclear war. It was almost an obsession with a few of them. It’s almost as though people without religion, who don’t belong to any of the great religious traditions, have got to be frightened of something.

 

[steveandersen]

Alright Al Masetti, where are you?

Actually, I think the burden of proof lies with those who advocate man-made global warming.

I asked that he prove that those who agree there is a human contribution to climate chage are just chanting the “Mantra’s of the Secular Relativist’s Gaia cult mentality.” (whatever that means) Not that he prove that there is or is not a human contribution.

If we are to take the claims seriously enough to legislate it, there should be conclusive proof.

most of the groups that study it indicate that they have a confidence interval of >90%

but that was not what I was talking about

I don’t think Cardinal Pell is trying to dismiss all those who care about the environment as “hysterical”.

I understand the Cardinal’s position (Although that tired old chestnut of “In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling” is just getting tired…and old. If the Cardinal is going to pronounce on science matters he should get it right otherwise he is a guilty of spreading half truths and hyperbole as those he is speaking against.)
I was objecting to the OP’s position that those who disagree are members of “the secular relativist left” and/or pagans.

Getting people to discuss scientific topics is difficult enough without name-calling

I think that the current situation necessitates he use strong language to pull people back a little bit so that they look at the issue critically rather than accepting global warming as dogma.

Well of course it isn’t dogma.

I don’t think the cardinal is advocating that we not listen to the proponents of the global warming theory, he is simply asking that we not shut down the debate, as many are wont to do. We need to listen to both sides. Many refuse to do so. This is not how scientific progress works.

Scientific work progresses by having scientists work on it, as is happening. Not by having a public debate where everyone with a keyboard and an opinion can chime in.
(And yes I realize the irony that I am someone with a keyboard and an opinion)

The fact that many scientists were touting “global cooling” 30 years ago and are now saying the opposite at the very least should give one pause before accepting their claims.

Sigh
Some scientist noted a short range cooling trend and the popular press whipped it into a “new ice age” frenzy.
There was no consensus on “global cooling” in the 70s.

And, of course, I issue the disclaimer that refusal to accept the global warming theory (and it is still just a theory)

and so is germ theory but I would suggest that your dentist wash his hands before you say “ah”

Actually it is not a theory
It is a model
It is probably based on some theories with regards to emmisivity, thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, etc and direct observations
But it is itself not a theory

does NOT mean that I would advocate not protecting the environment. Of course we must be good stewards of our resources. I just have my doubts about whether this is really the best way.

Well I’m open to suggestions.

Fossil fuels, while fantastically useful, are flawed because they are non-renewable. The facts that they mess up the carbon cycle and a lot of them are in the hands of undesirable governments is just another nail in the (long term) coffin.

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, I think the burden of proof lies with those who advocate man-made global warming. If we are to take the claims seriously enough to legislate it, there should be conclusive proof.

It can be difficult to explain to people in non technical fields, but in science we do not deal with indisputable proof and smoking guns, but a prepondence of evidence.

As of now, the amount of evidence supporting the theory of man-made climate change is daunting. Just a few years ago, you could get outlier studies, principally funded by energy companies (when the UN Sigmi-Xi report was released, consolidating about 300 studies, there was actually a $25,000 bounty offered for critical papers from accredited professionals from one industry fronted ‘institute’).

But now it has reached the point where it is hard to find science professionals even willing to take the money. This is because when there was less evidence, and more doubt, you could be contrary and not look completely incompetent. Now, you pretty much would have to make stuff up since there are mountains of data. And just making stuff up is a lot more career ending for a scientific researcher than a politician or even a journalist.

Even inherently ‘conservative’ science sources (in the scientific sense, not the political sense), like NASA and JPL are raising the alarm bells, though the administration has altered and suppressed climate change related research and reports from both in recent years, starting something of a backlash among scientists (ex. theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/)

It has gotten so hard to produce/find contrary science, that even obvious hoaxes now get snapped up by deniers. The one mentioned here comes to mind:

scienceblog.com/cms/climate-change-great-gotcha-14750.html

There are, BTW, other voices among the faithful. For example:

catholicearthcareoz.net/conference.html

But it always seem to be the folks shouting ‘Flat Earth!’ who get press…

 

[SoCalRC]

Fossil fuels, while fantastically useful, are flawed because they are non-renewable. The facts that they mess up the carbon cycle and a lot of them are in the hands of undesirable governments is just another nail in the (long term) coffin.

In the short term we’ll make some efficiency improvements. For example, gasoline automobiles are still running down in the 22-28% efficiency range. We still use excess fuel to ‘cool’ (actually it slows down the flame front moving the peak pressure point, but we call it ‘cooling’) engines to prevent detonation at high power settings.

Long term, it seems like methanol is the best bet, since it has a overall negative carbon footprint. I’d also really expect to see a new generation of nuclear based energy (some technologies that the Navy experimented with decades ago seem interesting, and materials science has come a long way).

But I’m sure we’ll take a convoluted path to get there, since politics leans towards ‘defer to obvious crisis’.

 

[SILVERNAME]

earth worship indeed.

environmentalism is part of the neopagan movement, both religous and secular.

Bottom line, global warming isn’t real, it just another thing that the secular humanist fanatics are using so that they can impose policies that are anti-life and anti-traditional family and anti-traditional marriage.

 

[Joe_5859]

I asked that he prove that those who agree there is a human contribution to climate chage are just chanting the “Mantra’s of the Secular Relativist’s Gaia cult mentality.” (whatever that means) Not that he prove that there is or is not a human contribution.

Ahh, I misunderstood you. That is a fair request.

I was objecting to the OP’s position that those who disagree are members of “the secular relativist left” and/or pagans.

Fair enough. I would agree that while some proponents of global warming certainly would fall into this category, not all of them would.

Getting people to discuss scientific topics is difficult enough without name-calling

I agree.

Scientific work progresses by having scientists work on it, as is happening. Not by having a public debate where everyone with a keyboard and an opinion can chime in.
(And yes I realize the irony that I am someone with a keyboard and an opinion)

Also a good point (and I’m glad you realize the irony! I realize it for myself as well!)

Sigh
Some scientist noted a short range cooling trend and the popular press whipped it into a “new ice age” frenzy.
There was no consensus on “global cooling” in the 70s.

The popular press whip something up into a frenzy? Now I know you’re just making stuff up!

I suppose I just worry that something similar is happening now (making something out of nothing or very little). Even if global warming exists, and even if it is manmade, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily a bad thing. And even if it is a bad thing, it doesn’t mean that it’s catastrophically bad (on the level of “The Day After Tomorrow”). It seems like each part needs to be looked at separately and many people (on both sides) put it all together into one package that you either accept or reject. Perhaps I do that myself to some degree.

Actually it is not a theory
It is a model
It is probably based on some theories with regards to emmisivity, thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, etc and direct observations
But it is itself not a theory

Thank you for that distinction.

Fossil fuels, while fantastically useful, are flawed because they are non-renewable. The facts that they mess up the carbon cycle and a lot of them are in the hands of undesirable governments is just another nail in the (long term) coffin.

Finding renewable energy sources would probably be good thing. Of course, given time, they may also fall into the hands of undesirable governments, but that wouldn’t be a good reason not to pursue them.

I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I am (and perhaps others are) very skeptical because it is associated with the extreme version presented by the media. Also, many of the same people in politics and the media that are on board the global warming bandwagon are also on the abortion bandwagon. That doesn’t instill much confidence in their ability to correctly discern scientific studies. Perhaps the hyped of version found in the media is not representative of the majority opinion of scientists? I admit I don’t know enough to answer that question.

 

[steveandersen]

earth worship indeed.

environmentalism is part of the neopagan movement, both religous and secular.

Maybe you should tell that to St Francis

Bottom line, global warming isn’t real,

a large body of climate scientists disagrees

it just another thing that the secular humanist fanatics are using so that they can impose policies that are anti-life and anti-traditional family and anti-traditional marriage.

I take exception to that categorization

 

[melensdad]

"SIVERNAME:

earth worship indeed.

environmentalism is part of the neopagan movement, both religous and secular.

Maybe you should tell that to St Francis

I believe that St Francis would agree that ‘earth worship’ is pagan. St Francis had a love of the things that God created but his devotion was to the Lord, not to the earth.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This is kind of a silly article, and I think the good Cardinal is wrong. I’m plenty Catholic, and I believe global warming is a serious issue that should not be neglected. It’s not a “pagan” or “hysterical” substitute for religion, for me, and it’s rather insulting for the article to suggest such. In fact, my own Catholic beliefs tend to reinforce my concern about the issue. If unfettered global warming continues, then it is very likely there will be bad consequences for many people on the planet, and, as always, the poor will suffer most. This is a social justice issue. To say that the basic principles of global warming are still undecided by climate scientists reflects ignorance on the part of this irresponsible Cardinal.

You make two erroneous assumptions here:

1. Global warming is real
2. We caused it