E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I think there is disagreement regarding what that means.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
estesbob
Guest
“Even if it is true that science disproves some of what the Holy Father claims as erroneous, for example, about the causes of climate change, that does not negate from the obligation to be moral with regard to how we treat the climate, how we treat nature, and how we treat the excludedHere’s a good answer to that.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/infallible-informal-how-binding-is-the-new-encyclical-on-catholics-24963/
This is what I have been saying all along
E
estesbob
Guest
Correct-acceptance of AGW is not.In summary: Stewardship of the environment is a moral issue.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
It’s a rather moot point. People can disagree with the extent of the consequences of bad stewardship, but it is still bad stewardship.Correct-acceptance of AGW is not.
E
estesbob
Guest
By bad stewardship do you mean extreme measures that have little or no effect on the environment but would be devastating to the poor and needy? You know-the kind of measures promoted by AGW alarmists. The pope rejected them as should we.It’s a rather moot point. People can disagree with the extent of the consequences of bad stewardship, but it is still bad stewardship.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
To me it means I don’t have to believe in global warming.I think there is disagreement regarding what that means.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Reducing fossil fuel consumption and ultimately replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources is hardly extreme particularly considering the fact that most consumption is gratuitous. It is immoral to prioritize matters of mere convenience over the existence of an entire species and the health of the environment. I do not believe the Pope has or would advocate against that.By bad stewardship do you mean extreme measures that have little or no effect on the environment but would be devastating to the poor and needy? You know-the kind of measures promoted by AGW alarmists. The pope rejected them as should we.
B
Bradski
Guest
It would be extremely difficult for me to explain how utterly weird that sentence is.To me it means I don’t have to believe in global warming.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Yes me too.I believe we all are in agreement we need to be good stewards of the planet.
E
estesbob
Guest
One can reduce fossil fuel consumption without having the government come in and force draconian measures on them . As far as your opinion of what the pope would and would not advocate I hardly think one who rejects the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church including homosexuality, abortion, contraception mandates etc. is in a position to lecture Catholics on what the pope is sayingReducing fossil fuel consumption and ultimately replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources is hardly extreme particularly considering the fact that most consumption is gratuitous. It is immoral to prioritize matters of mere convenience over the existence of an entire species and the health of the environment. I do not believe the Pope has or would advocate against that.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
What is wrong with keeping warm in the winter and keeping cool in the summer??Reducing fossil fuel consumption and ultimately replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources is hardly extreme particularly considering the fact that most consumption is gratuitous. It is immoral to prioritize matters of mere convenience over the existence of an entire species and the health of the environment. I do not believe the Pope has or would advocate against that.
What is wrong with driving a nice comfortable and SAFE SUV?
What is wrong with using our God given resources to provide for our comfort?
We have enough people on our planet who could use some creature comforts rather than sparing a species (?) that has outlived its adaptability.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I’m not aware of any sin that is made acceptable by the convenience and unnecessary creature comforts that result from its commission. Bad stewardship of the environment certainly isn’t an example of one.What is wrong with keeping warm in the winter and keeping cool in the summer??
What is wrong with driving a nice comfortable and SAFE SUV?
What is wrong with using our God given resources to provide for our comfort?
We have enough people on our planet who could use some creature comforts rather than sparing a species (?) that has outlived its adaptability.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Gentlefolk:
As I said before, it boils down to whether Pope Francis (and anyone else) is justified in trusting the climate science establishment led by the IPCC.
At first glance, the IPCC appears to be an utterly authoritative and reliable expert witness. No agency has undertaken such a long-term and comprehensive study of climate change. It has issued 5 reports, each one building on the previous ones, all building to a seemingly inescapable verdict: Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Words like “gold standard,” “uniquely authoritative,” etc. are used to praise the IPCC. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, declared that the IPCC is the ultimate scientific authority on climate change.
So it is not surprising that the Holy Father looks to them to support his climate activism. But might there be reasons not to trust its conclusions?..Alas I must leave and help make me supper.
cordially,
ferd
As I said before, it boils down to whether Pope Francis (and anyone else) is justified in trusting the climate science establishment led by the IPCC.
At first glance, the IPCC appears to be an utterly authoritative and reliable expert witness. No agency has undertaken such a long-term and comprehensive study of climate change. It has issued 5 reports, each one building on the previous ones, all building to a seemingly inescapable verdict: Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Words like “gold standard,” “uniquely authoritative,” etc. are used to praise the IPCC. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, declared that the IPCC is the ultimate scientific authority on climate change.
So it is not surprising that the Holy Father looks to them to support his climate activism. But might there be reasons not to trust its conclusions?..Alas I must leave and help make me supper.
cordially,
ferd
E
estesbob
Guest
My reasons for not trusting is every single model and every single prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong .Gentlefolk:
As I said before, it boils down to whether Pope Francis (and anyone else) is justified in trusting the climate science establishment led by the IPCC.
At first glance, the IPCC appears to be an utterly authoritative and reliable expert witness. No agency has undertaken such a long-term and comprehensive study of climate change. It has issued 5 reports, each one building on the previous ones, all building to a seemingly inescapable verdict: Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Words like “gold standard,” “uniquely authoritative,” etc. are used to praise the IPCC. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, declared that the IPCC is the ultimate scientific authority on climate change.
So it is not surprising that the Holy Father looks to them to support his climate activism. But might there be reasons not to trust its conclusions?..Alas I must leave and help make me supper.
cordially,
ferd
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
What is “bad stewardship”?I’m not aware of any sin that is made acceptable by the convenience and unnecessary creature comforts that result from its commission. Bad stewardship of the environment certainly isn’t an example of one.
I think we are doing pretty good. The rain forests are growing back at record rates, there is no more SMOG, and the Polar Bear population is increasing.
K
Karen107
Guest
Have they? Like what?My reasons for not trusting is every single model and every single prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong .
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Here are some pretty compelling reasons why the IPCC should not be trusted:
First, the IPCC really isn’t a scientific organization. The IPCC is ultimately a governmental body comprised of 195 member governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists. Each government selects the scientists who will participate, which compromises their independence. The governments choose the bureaucrats who conduct the day-to-day operations and control the review process. The politicians write the all-important Summary for Policymakers, and even reserve the right to edit the underlying scientific reports themselves so that they conform to the summaries.
Second, the IPCC is biased against CO2 and is incapable of writing fair and objective reports. It serves the UNFCCC, a convention which has already accused, tried, and convicted CO2. Its founding purpose is to find evidence that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming, not to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Third, the IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. It has systematically ignored evidence which exonerates CO2 (natural cycles within the climate system, solar influences, etc.). It has not kept its distance from environmental activists and has let hundreds of them into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers. Her leaders have expressed their biases openly and are hardly models of dispassionate objectivity. (Now disgraced and former Chairman Pachauri wrote a forward to a Greenpeace publication, and on another occasion wished that IPCC critics would rub asbestos in their faces.) Expert reviewers who object to biased positions taken in the draft reports are ignored. And on and on.
First, the IPCC really isn’t a scientific organization. The IPCC is ultimately a governmental body comprised of 195 member governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists. Each government selects the scientists who will participate, which compromises their independence. The governments choose the bureaucrats who conduct the day-to-day operations and control the review process. The politicians write the all-important Summary for Policymakers, and even reserve the right to edit the underlying scientific reports themselves so that they conform to the summaries.
Second, the IPCC is biased against CO2 and is incapable of writing fair and objective reports. It serves the UNFCCC, a convention which has already accused, tried, and convicted CO2. Its founding purpose is to find evidence that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming, not to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Third, the IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. It has systematically ignored evidence which exonerates CO2 (natural cycles within the climate system, solar influences, etc.). It has not kept its distance from environmental activists and has let hundreds of them into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers. Her leaders have expressed their biases openly and are hardly models of dispassionate objectivity. (Now disgraced and former Chairman Pachauri wrote a forward to a Greenpeace publication, and on another occasion wished that IPCC critics would rub asbestos in their faces.) Expert reviewers who object to biased positions taken in the draft reports are ignored. And on and on.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Fourth, the expertise of the IPCC is not as advertised. Former Chairman Pachauri has boasted that only the world’s top experts are chosen to participate in the IPCC review process and the writing of the reports. However, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has shown that many world-class experts are excluded from the IPCC process. In fact many lead authors have been mere graduate students years away from getting their doctorates.
Fifth, the number of participating scientists and the implied agreement among them is greatly exaggerated. We are often told about the thousands of scientists (4,000 according to some) who contribute to the IPCC reports. However, once duplicate names are removed, the actual number drops down below 2,900 according to one auditor. In addition, if we count only those who contribute to the writing of the all-important Summaries for Policymakers, the number drops down below 100. It is completely unjustified to infer agreement among all the participating scientists solely by reason of their participation. Many participants are reviewers who have submitted comments critical of the IPCC’s conclusions. Also the reviewers contribute only in their areas of expertise or on topics that interest them, not the entire report. And again, the number of scientists who draft the summaries and explicitly endorse the IPCC’s central claims is very small.
Fifth, the number of participating scientists and the implied agreement among them is greatly exaggerated. We are often told about the thousands of scientists (4,000 according to some) who contribute to the IPCC reports. However, once duplicate names are removed, the actual number drops down below 2,900 according to one auditor. In addition, if we count only those who contribute to the writing of the all-important Summaries for Policymakers, the number drops down below 100. It is completely unjustified to infer agreement among all the participating scientists solely by reason of their participation. Many participants are reviewers who have submitted comments critical of the IPCC’s conclusions. Also the reviewers contribute only in their areas of expertise or on topics that interest them, not the entire report. And again, the number of scientists who draft the summaries and explicitly endorse the IPCC’s central claims is very small.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Sixth, the manner in which the IPCC arrives at its conclusions is not very scientific. As stated above, only a relative handful of participating scientists have a direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC. The policy summaries are produced by an inner core of scientists, and they are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
Seventh, the vaunted IPCC review process is not very scientific or rigorous. The review process falls far short of traditional peer review. IPCC insiders admit that there is no data quality assurance performed on the studies reviewed by the IPCC. The IPCC naively trusts the integrity of the scientific journals and their peer review process. In fact, IPCC administrators told one expert reviewer, Stephen McIntyre, that his position would be terminated if he persisted in seeking the underlying data of a particular journal article. Another problem with the IPCC review process is that lead authors are given veto power over objections raised by reviewers, which often are just summarily dismissed. Lead authors also are allowed to judge their own work as well as that of their critics. A good example of this conflict of interest in action would be Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy. Mann, as lead author of the 2001 paleoclimate chapter, approved his own shoddy scholarship and featured it in his chapter.
Seventh, the vaunted IPCC review process is not very scientific or rigorous. The review process falls far short of traditional peer review. IPCC insiders admit that there is no data quality assurance performed on the studies reviewed by the IPCC. The IPCC naively trusts the integrity of the scientific journals and their peer review process. In fact, IPCC administrators told one expert reviewer, Stephen McIntyre, that his position would be terminated if he persisted in seeking the underlying data of a particular journal article. Another problem with the IPCC review process is that lead authors are given veto power over objections raised by reviewers, which often are just summarily dismissed. Lead authors also are allowed to judge their own work as well as that of their critics. A good example of this conflict of interest in action would be Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy. Mann, as lead author of the 2001 paleoclimate chapter, approved his own shoddy scholarship and featured it in his chapter.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Eighth, Chairman Pachauri boasts that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. This claim was spectacularly proven false when it was revealed that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 was based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine article. Journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed.
Ninth, the peer-review process itself has proved to be unreliable and cannot be trusted. In this regard the urban heat island effect study by Wang and Jones, which grossly misrepresented its data, can be cited. However, the Hockey Stick studies by Mann et al are the best examples of the unreliability of normal peer-review. Mann’s studies were published in very reputable journals but received only cursory examination of their methods and no examination of their data. No due diligence work was performed until four years after publication, when Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining consultant from Canada, took an interest in Mann’s work as a hobby and tried to replicate his findings. McIntyre first discovered numerous problems with Mann’s data. In some cases it was impossible to find the original data sources. The data sets had gaps and in some instances the gaps were filled in using the last available number. Some data sets were mislabeled, some were truncated, and some were obsolete. McIntyre also discovered that Mann had used data sets which were known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions but which were apparently included because they had the desired hockey stick shape. McIntyre was eventually able to prove that Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, which supposedly proved that the warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented in 1,000 years, was an artifact of his flawed statistical methods and bad data. Yet Mann’s papers sailed on through peer-review, both at the journal level and at the IPCC.
Ninth, the peer-review process itself has proved to be unreliable and cannot be trusted. In this regard the urban heat island effect study by Wang and Jones, which grossly misrepresented its data, can be cited. However, the Hockey Stick studies by Mann et al are the best examples of the unreliability of normal peer-review. Mann’s studies were published in very reputable journals but received only cursory examination of their methods and no examination of their data. No due diligence work was performed until four years after publication, when Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining consultant from Canada, took an interest in Mann’s work as a hobby and tried to replicate his findings. McIntyre first discovered numerous problems with Mann’s data. In some cases it was impossible to find the original data sources. The data sets had gaps and in some instances the gaps were filled in using the last available number. Some data sets were mislabeled, some were truncated, and some were obsolete. McIntyre also discovered that Mann had used data sets which were known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions but which were apparently included because they had the desired hockey stick shape. McIntyre was eventually able to prove that Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, which supposedly proved that the warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented in 1,000 years, was an artifact of his flawed statistical methods and bad data. Yet Mann’s papers sailed on through peer-review, both at the journal level and at the IPCC.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.