@lynnvic:
Do you know what a straw man fallacy is?
Either you’re intentionally not responding to me, an I ought to just ignore this, or you’re just avoiding my points and arguing against something else entirely for some other reason. Either way, it’s pretty tough to have a conversation about something when you go off on some other topic and ignore what I said, despite quoting me as if you were responding to me.
I.e., we don’t have to believe in gravity. Cool. I think I’ll fly away home now
The Church doesn’t mandate belief in particular scientific theories. That doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge the truth around us. However, gravity is an interesting point. Everyone always recognized the practical effects of gravity on our lives. But it took plenty of time, measurements, and investigation to come up with a detailed, unified theory of gravity–from measuring rates of acceleration, parabolic arcs, mass to weight, distance between bodies of mass, etc. Adam and Eve didn’t know and advance Newton’s theory, much less later refinements on it.
And you know what’s really interesting? Physicists are now casting into doubt long-accepted theories of the actual causes and workings of gravitational forces.
This doesn’t affect the practical day-to-day effects of gravity. But what it really is and how it affects things on a grand scale is still up for scientific investigation.
So thanks for proving my point, in a tangential and roundabout way
JPII did say about evolution, “Truth [God, religious truth] cannot contradict truth [science of evolution, scientific “truth”].”
Of course. But scientists have been wrong plenty of times. This is one way that scientific discovery differs from revealed truth. Scientists are not infallible. The truth that God has revealed through the Church is.
This is instructive because we should not out-of-hand deny the conclusions that the vast majority of climate scientists have come to, that AGW is happening and is expected to have severe negative impacts to human welfare. Those who do so are stepping outside the thrust and thinking of church doctrine that includes “Thou shalt not kill.”
There are at least five different issues here.
1. One is that there are many different theories and models of what is happening. There is actually less “consensus” and over less time about these theories and their effects than there is with regards to evolution and many questions of physics or even physiology, and yet the Church does not step up to ringingly endorse the longer-established, more uniform theories and models in those other disciplines. It in fact still advocates healthy skepticism and requires room for doubt and investigation.
Status: We’re not exactly sure what’s happening. There’s a diversity of opinions and models are always changing.
Implications: The degree of uncertainty about what exactly is happening increases the uncertainty of everything else related to the issue.
2. Secondly, there are many different extrapolations about causes of what is being observed with regard to climate. This adds another level of uncertainty, and one in even more question among scientists – just like the causes of certain physical and biological phenomena are subject to more question and diversity of opinion than what is actually observed. The Church is even less likely to endorse or even tilt in favor of proposed causes, which might direct action towards an incorrect conclusion.
**Status: **We’re less sure about the particular causes of climate change, the relative importance of each, and the relative effects of each.
**Implications: **The degree of uncertainty about causes further increases uncertainty about predictions, impacts, and possibilities of manipulating the future by changing the causes.
**3. Thirdly, **there are many different predicted future trends of what may happen with regard to the climate. Again, another level of uncertainty, with wider variation even under AGW proponents. Again, the Church isn’t very likely to suggest that the faithful must hold to some predicted outcome, which might influence action.
**Status: **There’s even more uncertainty and wider variation about predictions of future climatic conditions.
Implications: It’s pretty difficult to predict impacts (and thus make reasonable cost/benefit analyses) with wide variations in predicted outcomes.
4. Fourthly, there are many different predictions about the impact to humans of the predicted climate change. The extent of this is one of the most uncertain aspects of all. The Church is not likely to weigh in on anything other than general concerns and warnings because of the high degree of uncertainty in this area.
Status: We know even less about how climate change will affect humans – particularly given the fact that so few models account for the powerful ability of humans to adapt (we are vastly better at adapting to living conditions than any other organism).
Implications: Those cost/benefit analyses of changing behaviors are getting even harder to make reasonable…
5. Fifthly, there are many different predictions about what impact changes to human behavior can have on the trends. Lots of uncertainty, here, too (though mostly scientists don’t seem to think we can actually do much, just influence it a little). Once again, doesn’t leave the Church much room or certainty in making a decision to bind the faithful.
**Status: **We’re not sure what we can do about climate change–how much we can affect it.
**Implication: **This factor by itself renders those cost/benefit analyses nearly worthless.
