Laudato Si...must we assent?

[Rau]

See in particular paragraphs 23 and 24. The Holy Father quite clearly endorses the alarmist position. He is certainly free to do so, but why take sides in a scientific debate? He hath not the competence.

The Pope is entitled to take scientific (name removed by moderator)ut and be influenced by it - and particularly given the gravity of the matter and the weight of evidence. He is not “teaching”, nor seeking to teach, science. You may in good conscience assert (I assume, with some rational basis), that the science he references is entirely bogus. Nevertheless, he accepts this science, and goes on to teach about our obligations to the planet. That teaching would be right, even if the climate matter turns out to be a false alarm.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Thanks Leaf and Rau,

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is helpful.

While the Holy Father cannot in any way be seen as teaching science, he has handed the global warming movement a tremendous PR tool with his endorsement of the proposition that mankind, through its CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, is causing dangerous global warming. Speaking as someone who has studied the subject in depth for almost 10 years, this endorsement is very disheartening. What is even more disappointing is his refusal to dialogue with climate skeptics, who have been, without justification, dismissed as tools for fossil fuel interests. And even more disappointing is that he has surrounded himself with advisors who represent groups who are at war with the Church.

My rational basis for disagreeing the Holy Father’s stance on climate change is explained in a 12 part series which starts here: CO2 On Trial Part 1 - YouTube

 

[ralfyman]

The NAS did not readily accept the IPCC findings. Rather, it conducted a review of that and many other studies before doing so.

Mueller was actually a skeptic based on what you shared, and BEST was set up with support from skeptics to study the matter independently. It confirmed IPCC findings as well.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi Ralfy,

Muller never denied the CO2 theory of climate change. He just was honest about uncertainties in the surface temp record. He also was not afraid to criticize his colleagues about their bad conduct. For example, he called out Mickey Mann for his lack of transparency and stone-walling. He also took Jones et al to task for their “hiding the decline” and dishonesty.

Unfortunately, he was branded a “denier” and was on the outs with the climate science establishment. His involvement with BEST was his attempt to get back into their good graces.

 

[ralfyman]

He actually referred to himself as a “converted skeptic” in his NYT article and his conversion a “total turnaround.”

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I just find it amusing that when conservatives agree with the pope in an encyclical (such as Humanae Vitae), they cry “obedience!! Infallible!!”, but when they disagree, they scoff: “Aw, it’s just an encyclical. It’s not infallible, therefore…prudential judgment!!!” It is almost like a nuanced form of cafeteria Catholicism.

Not almost, it is a form of cafeteria Catholicism.