Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
I’m no saint myself. So when I say Pope Francis is a true Christian, I’m putting him way above myself.

I think there may be some 3% of Christians who are truly saintly and “true Christians.” The rest I think are bad.

I remember telling my husband that, and he said, what about our neighbors, the Olsens (an elderly couple), and I said, yes, they would be in that 3% of good people. He then said, maybe the Olsens consider us in that 97% bad category.

I said, oh no, they are much too good to think of other people as being bad. 🙂

I guess the issue is that simply doing the EC (environmentally correct) things does not make a person a good person or a true Christian. There would have to be consistency in all parts of their lives, in their thoughts and deeds, in their acknowledgement that all their good is actually God’s grace and not from themselves.

And since I go around knocking AGW denialists in a rude manner, that pretty much puts me in the bad category, that and a number of other short-comings.

However, it seems to me that refusing to do the needful to reduce one’s harms to others, denying one is harming others (even when information is presented to that person, such as thru a papal encyclical), and putting forth tremendous efforts to dissuade others from doing right (or accepting that encyclical) pretty much disqualifies those persons from being in the running for that 3% good category. But, hey, maybe I’m wrong and you’re right!
Click to expand...
Feel free to categorize your own performance or relative standing as a Christian, but have a care when applying those personal standards to someone else; you lack the wisdom and data necessary to do that.
 
lynnvinc said:
Again, any technique might be extremely precise and reliable, but that doesn’t make its results automatically valid.

I’ve read there are problems with RSS and UAH and their results need to be adjusted to make them valid.

Furthermore, there are many other sources of data re AGW, not just the satellites, and all of them robustly converge into one conclusion – AGW is real and is happening (tho maybe not a quickly and strictly increasing as the denialists seeking ever-increasing hotter weather would wish).
Click to expand...
Please. There are problems with all transducer based measurements, as they are all indirect. Whether it be a column of mercury, an RTD, TC or radiometer, each one requires some “help” to make the transformation to a unit of temperature, based on simple if not imperfect models of the physical systems used to measure it.
 
sps49 said:
Please. There are problems with all transducer based measurements, as they are all indirect. Whether it be a column of mercury, an RTD, TC or radiometer, each one requires some “help” to make the transformation to a unit of temperature, based on simple if not imperfect models of the physical systems used to measure it.
Click to expand...
LOL, Heathrow just recorded one of it’s hottest days evah.

Investigation showed the temp jumped by 0.9C in two minutes, helping secure the record.
But the sun didn’t do it. The temp gauge is located next to a runway and the jump coincided with a very large jet landing, and a wind shift moving the heated air in the ‘right direction’.

Somehow people trust the vagaries of uniquely adjusting all these ill placed ground stations over the very systematic adjustment of sat data.

This toon says it all

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
sps49 said:
One would also think that unless you knew the heart of another man you could not possible know if he were a “true Christian.” Don’t you wonder how lynnvinc got the “true Christian” list?
Click to expand...
I didn’t see any claim of having a “true Christian” list. The only claim I saw was however you think of true Christian, the pope is one. Again, not a controversial claim, despite the attempts to cast the claim in some other light.
 
Theo520 said:
LOL, Heathrow just recorded one of it’s hottest days evah.

Investigation showed the temp jumped by 0.9C in two minutes, helping secure the record.
But the sun didn’t do it. The temp gauge is located next to a runway and the jump coincided with a very large jet landing, and a wind shift moving the heated air in the ‘right direction’.
Click to expand...
One-day records like that, even if true, should have no bearing on the validity of climate change. So if such one-day records turn out to be false, that should have no weight against climate change theory either.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I didn’t see any claim of having a “true Christian” list. The only claim I saw was however you think of true Christian, the pope is one. Again, not a controversial claim, despite the attempts to cast the claim in some other light.
Click to expand...
Of course you don’t see it. It must be a burden to have such perceptual clarity.
 
sps49 said:
Feel free to categorize your own performance or relative standing as a Christian, but have a care when applying those personal standards to someone else; you lack the wisdom and data necessary to do that.
Click to expand...
The idea actually came to me from a Nightline program on torture several decades ago. The expert explained about who those torturers in Latin America were (their backgrounds, etc) and that they were not some rare monsters; he basically said the boy next door could become a torturer, that perhaps only 2 to 3% of a population would be able to resist becoming a torturer if put in the circumstances and pressures to become one. The Milgram experiment in psychology sort of bears that out.

And that sort of resonated with a study done by Gallup on “The Saints Among Us,” which I believe found that there were only about 5% “saints” (though I can’t remember the exact findings).

So there is data.

Now the issue is that we work like devils to increase those percentages of good and saintly people…with God’s abundant grace, of course. 🙂
 
LeafByNiggle said:
All that shows is that climate modeling is more complex than tossing a 6-sided die. But you weren’t arguing about complexity back then. You were arguing that short-term failures should cast doubt on longer-term projections. I showed that that argument is not always valid. That is true whether the subject is simple or complex. Now if you want to launch a separate argument that climate science is too complex to model with any practical utility, then go right ahead.
Click to expand...
My point, perhaps not well explained, was that I can design a model to simulate the throw of a single 6 sided dice it will show results that match up pretty well with reality. Climate modelers haven’t been able to do this reliably with their simulations.
 
ucfengr said:
My point, perhaps not well explained, was that I can design a model to simulate the throw of a single 6 sided dice it will show results that match up pretty well with reality. Climate modelers haven’t been able to do this reliably with their simulations.
Click to expand...
Bec they cannot predict every climate change variable that will go up or down in the future, when it will happen, and how much – such as deeper ocean subduction of the warming, solar minima and maximum (how deep, how long), volcanoes, aerosols increasing (as they have in China, etc, a cooling effect) or decreasing (due to stricter pollution laws), and natural fluctuations, such as el ninos & la ninas (the “sloshings” of the system).

Considering all that, their projections (not predictions) have been fairly good, especially compared to the null, flat-line hypothesis that no GW is taking place and the GH effect is bogus. The null would have our temps back down to pre-1980s level. So just look at the differences between the null and the research hypothesis projections and you will see the results support the latter to a very large degree.

Do they need to keep tweaking the models as more data comes in and theory-based formulas become possible. Of course. That’s the nature of science, a continual improvement over and refinement of previous studies and results.
 
sps49 said:
One wonders what lynnvinc’s 97% of sub-par believers have to say about that…
Click to expand...
I’d hope they’d (we’d) be clinging to Jesus and seeking the Divine Mercy of God.

The next sentences after the difficulties of getting into heaven and the camel going thru the eye of the needle reads: "When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
 
lynnvinc said:
The idea actually came to me from a Nightline program on torture several decades ago. The expert explained about who those torturers in Latin America were (their backgrounds, etc) and that they were not some rare monsters; he basically said the boy next door could become a torturer, that perhaps only 2 to 3% of a population would be able to resist becoming a torturer if put in the circumstances and pressures to become one. The Milgram experiment in psychology sort of bears that out.

And that sort of resonated with a study done by Gallup on “The Saints Among Us,” which I believe found that there were only about 5% “saints” (though I can’t remember the exact findings).

So there is data.

Now the issue is that we work like devils to increase those percentages of good and saintly people…with God’s abundant grace, of course. 🙂
Click to expand...
I see. So the methods of Gallop and Milgram are acceptable examples of determining who are, and who are not “true Christians.” Wow, what a relief! Now we don’t have to worry about difficult ethical and epistemological dilemmas of knowing what someone else’s spiritual state is. You already know what their spiritual state is by a simple algorithm of poll taking or by analysis of experimental data. How very convenient, it saves you the bother of walking in their shoes.
 
lynnvinc said:
Considering all that, their projections (not predictions) have been fairly good, especially compared to the null, flat-line hypothesis that no GW is taking place and the GH effect is bogus. The null would have our temps back down to pre-1980s level. So just look at the differences between the null and the research hypothesis projections and you will see the results support the latter to a very large degree.
Click to expand...
IOW, compared to a straw man, your projections are pretty good.
 
ucfengr said:
My point, perhaps not well explained, was that I can design a model to simulate the throw of a single 6 sided dice it will show results that match up pretty well with reality.
Click to expand...
Not really. Not in the short run. You try to design a model to simulate the throw of a 6-sided die and see how closely it matches up with reality on exactly 6 throws - no more. Your model will probably say that every side will appear exactly once. But I’ll bet that in real life you won’t get that with 6 throws.

That is equivalent to taking the models for climate change, which were designed to project long-term trends, and applying them to shorter time periods. The fact that real-life observations do not conform to the model for 18 years is like being disappointed that the model for a 6-sided die might not accurately predict the outcome when tossing the die exactly 6 times.
 
sps49 said:
One wonders what lynnvinc’s 97% of sub-par believers have to say about that. I don’t think forced perspective is going to help you much here.
Click to expand...
Since a lot of saints don’t want to be thought of as saints, ("…don’t let your right hand know what your left is doing…etc…" I’m hugely skeptical of any attempt to quantify their number or percentage.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Not really. Not in the short run. You try to design a model to simulate the throw of a 6-sided die and see how closely it matches up with reality on exactly 6 throws - no more. Your model will probably say that every side will appear exactly once. But I’ll bet that in real life you won’t get that with 6 throws.

That is equivalent to taking the models for climate change, which were designed to project long-term trends, and applying them to shorter time periods. The fact that real-life observations do not conform to the model for 18 years is like being disappointed that the model for a 6-sided die might not accurately predict the outcome when tossing the die exactly 6 times.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about wagering trillions of dollars on the results of a random number generator, we are talking about doing that on the results of climate models. If the models aren’t valid over 18-20 years, what basis do I have to assume they will be valid over 200 years.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
One-day records like that, even if true, should have no bearing on the validity of climate change. So if such one-day records turn out to be false, that should have no weight against climate change theory either.
Click to expand...
Correct, they have no bearing on Climate Change but they are awfully useful from a PR perspective, which is why the figure was touted in the press.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Since a lot of saints don’t want to be thought of as saints, ("…don’t let your right hand know what your left is doing…etc…" I’m hugely skeptical of any attempt to quantify their number or percentage.
Click to expand...
Spiritual principles such as humility are extremely opaque to analysis, numerical or otherwise. Thank goodness they they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top