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

[lynnvinc]

No, I only reject your distorted characterization of it.

I assumed the heart was the human person living under God in His creation, but I could be wrong. I have no doubt that the meme “AGW is happening” is the heart for you, the hammer for you nails. Assigning amorality to doubt is childish and reactionary, but I have come to expect this kind of bias from you.

Prudence? Please. It’s the precautionary principle masquerading as prudence, declining to fully examine the best available data in favor of a hedging philosophy. It is an intellectually dishonest approach which place the focus on the hypothesis, and eventually the hypothesis predetermines the results. Get a grip, lynvinnc.

Maybe it would be good for one to read the Encyclical, before he/she go on attacking people re it in a rude way…

Laudato Si:

1. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures”132 which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.

Also:
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good (15 June 2001) at usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm

And, of course, one needs to read top-tier science journals re climate change to get a better grip, or at least listen to what real, practicing climate scientist have to say about it on such sites as www.RealClimate.org, etc.

It is at least good the Holy Father has been keeping up with the science over the decades and knows of which he speaks. The science part of his encyclical matches very closely what I know about environmental problems, including climate change, and parallels the textbooks I use in my Environmental Studies courses I teach. It is solid and accurate.

 

[lynnvinc]

"Heaven belongs to us all – the new papal encyclical" - a recent guest post at RealClimate.org – See realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/heaven-belongs-to-us-all-the-new-papal-encyclical/#sthash.QvifCXID.dpuf

"With his encyclical “Laudato Si” the Pope has written more than a moral appeal without obligation. He has presented a pioneering political analysis with great explosive power, which will probably determine the public debate on climate change, poverty and inequality for years to come…The core of the encyclical makes clear that global warming is a “global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods” (25)…

…three aspects are particularly noteworthy:

1. it is based unequivocally on the scientific consensus that global warming is taking place and that climate change is man-made; it rejects the denial of anthropogenic warming;
2. it unmasks the political and economic structures of power behind the climate change debate and stresses the importance of non-state actors in achieving change; and
3. it defines the atmosphere and the environment as a common good rather than a “no man’s land”, available for anyone to pollute. This underlines that climate change is strongly related to the issues of justice and property rights…

The statements of the Pope concerning the scientific basis are in principle nothing new. The scientific consensus is recognized in the encyclical at the outset:

A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. …] A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases …] released mainly as a result of human activity [from Laudato Si, #23].

Moreover, the Pope refers to the scientifically long-established fact that the use of fossil fuels and deforestation are the main causes of climate change (23)."

 

[sps49]

Maybe it would be good for one to read the Encyclical, before he/she go on attacking people re it in a rude way…

Laudato Si:

1. The Rio Declaration of 1992 states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing cost-effective measures”132 which prevent environmental degradation. This precautionary principle makes it possible to protect those who are most vulnerable and whose ability to defend their interests and to assemble incontrovertible evidence is limited. If objective information suggests that serious and irreversible damage may result, a project should be halted or modified, even in the absence of indisputable proof. Here the burden of proof is effectively reversed, since in such cases objective and conclusive demonstrations will have to be brought forward to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause serious harm to the environment or to those who inhabit it.

Also:
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good (15 June 2001) at usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm

And, of course, one needs to read top-tier science journals re climate change to get a better grip, or at least listen to what real, practicing climate scientist have to say about it on such sites as www.RealClimate.org, etc.

It is at least good the Holy Father has been keeping up with the science over the decades and knows of which he speaks. The science part of his encyclical matches very closely what I know about environmental problems, including climate change, and parallels the textbooks I use in my Environmental Studies courses I teach. It is solid and accurate.

Re-stating the precautionary principle (Rio Declaration) does not absolve it of its fundamental weaknesses- lack of resiliency, intellectual laziness, and acting without the empirical proof necessary to make a reasoned decision. As for the encyclical’s claim of AGW being a scientific truth, it opens itself up to rightful criticism.

Equating critical examination and challenge to being rude is another example of answering the scientific question with a politicizing statement, demonstrating the tactics of an ideologue.

Citing an activist website is not a particularly convincing method to show impartiality, especially one that has been part of the active political AGW messaging campaign. It has been convincingly shown that there is much research to be done before the science of so-called AGW is settled, especially the attribution and natural variability issues.

Why do you suppose that it is frowned upon to speak about the the various uncertainties in the research and models? Errors in measurement, error of propagation in the models, are never discussed when a new paper supporting AGW is released. Everyone is supposed to uncritically accept that the research is “sound” and that the paper’s conclusions are correct. It is a disgrace.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Citing an activist website is not a particularly convincing method to show impartiality, especially one that has been part of the active political AGW messaging campaign.

But if you define “activist” as any website that affirms the scientific claims that you deny, it is pretty hard to support Lynn’s position without citing an “activist” website.

 

[sps49]

But if you define “activist” as any website that affirms the scientific claims that you deny, it is pretty hard to support Lynn’s position without citing an “activist” website.

Pro AGW activist websites “promotes” AGW political messaging, which is not the same as affirm. It’s one thing to affirm (we acknowledge this research, and agree with it,) and another to promote (this research is correct, and you should believe it is correct.)

Realclimate, since it was recently cited as an example of “real” scientists (what ever that means, because it seems to be a moving target,) is a part of the pro-AGW messaging (promoting) effort. For example Cultural Cognition and Realclimate cross reference one another in support of this promoting of the “correct way” to view climate research and it’s conclusions, while explaining why skeptics have some structural defect in their thinking that, or at a minimum, a bias, to explain their behavior. Of course, it is always assumed that non-skeptics are well adjusted reasoning beings. Recently, both entities have admitted that this is counterproductive.

I would be more sympathetic towards Realclimate if they were transparent about the uncertainties in the research conclusions they actively promote. Their forays into communicating to the reader about uncertainties are limited to explaining why the uncertainties will not, for the most part, have an effect on the conclusions. This is of course, for anyone who has created a physical model, an unreasonably optimistic line of reasoning to take.

If by citing such a website the goal is to create “believers” and denigrate skeptics, mission accomplished. I have not had a fruitful discussion with anyone on the pro-AGW side of the fence other than yourself or weller2 concerning the limitations of the various forms of the AGW hypothesis, and no one would characterize us as being in uniform agreement, but I will grant that you two do your homework.

 

[lynnvinc]

I predicted the Catholic anti-environmentalists and climate change denialists would find ways to twist and eviscerate the Encyclical. And I didn’t even have one of those fancy climate models to do so

 

[estesbob]

I predicted the Catholic anti-environmentalists and climate change denialists would find ways to twist and eviscerate the Encyclical. And I didn’t even have one of those fancy climate models to do so

Of course it would bolster the alarmist case immensely if there was actually some warming taking place . 18 years and counting and still waiting for even one single model that is not been falsified .

 

[lynnvinc]

Of course it would bolster the alarmist case immensely if there was actually some warming taking place . 18 years and counting and still waiting for even one single model that is not been falsified .

The Pope and climate scientists have no problem in understanding that GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED INCREASING. (And that cherry-picking the highest temp/el nino year possible, 1998, as a starting point, is the WRONG WAY TO DO SCIENCE.)

As I’ve stated over and over and over again, climate scientists need at least 30 years of climate data, since there are various other factors (short-term solar cycles, volcanoes, el ninos, etc) that impact the global average temps creating an up and down pattern, with the overall TREND upward since the mid-70s. Furthermore, those temps they use to show the warming DO NOT INCLUDE the warming of the deep oceans, where some of the warming has been going.

It’s all there for any honest layperson to get and to help in understanding. However, I suspect that only the saints will see the warming, since they have the patience of saints

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/files/2015/01/Global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980.png

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GISTEMPENSO.gif

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

 

[lynnvinc]

From “Pope Francis: Speech at World Meeting of Popular Movements” in Santa Cruz, Bolivia (full speech at news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at-world-meeting-of-popular-mo):

I would like, all the same, to propose three great tasks which demand a
decisive and shared contribution from popular movements:

3.1 The first task is to put the economy at the service of
peoples. Human beings and nature must not be at the service of money.
Let us say NO to an economy of exclusion and inequality, where money
rules, rather than service. That economy kills. That economy excludes.
That economy destroys Mother Earth…

 

[estesbob]

The Pope and climate scientists have no problem in understanding that GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED INCREASING. (And that cherry-picking the highest temp/el nino year possible, 1998, as a starting point, is the WRONG WAY TO DO SCIENCE.)

As I’ve stated over and over and over again, climate scientists need at least 30 years of climate data, since there are various other factors (short-term solar cycles, volcanoes, el ninos, etc) that impact the global average temps creating an up and down pattern, with the overall TREND upward since the mid-70s. Furthermore, those temps they use to show the warming DO NOT INCLUDE the warming of the deep oceans, where some of the warming has been going.

It’s all there for any honest layperson to get and to help in understanding. However, I suspect that only the saints will see the warming, since they have the patience of saints

Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GISTEMPENSO.gif

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...B779234E628F8CD5591F6FA9EDDCB&selectedIndex=6

 

[estesbob]

The Pope and climate scientists have no problem in understanding that GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED INCREASING. (And that cherry-picking the highest temp/el nino year possible, 1998, as a starting point, is the WRONG WAY TO DO SCIENCE.)

As I’ve stated over and over and over again, climate scientists need at least 30 years of climate data, since there are various other factors (short-term solar cycles, volcanoes, el ninos, etc) that impact the global average temps creating an up and down pattern, with the overall TREND upward since the mid-70s. Furthermore, those temps they use to show the warming DO NOT INCLUDE the warming of the deep oceans, where some of the warming has been going.

It’s all there for any honest layperson to get and to help in understanding. However, I suspect that only the saints will see the warming, since they have the patience of saints

Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GISTEMPENSO.gif

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/101 pirates-temp.jpg

 

[Ender]

The Pope and climate scientists have no problem in understanding that GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED INCREASING.

Wrong tense: global warming *was *increasing, but it isn’t any more. There has been no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

(And that cherry-picking the highest temp/el nino year possible, 1998, as a starting point, is the WRONG WAY TO DO SCIENCE.)

Ignoring the facts is the wrong way to debate. The period without warming goes back to December of 1996. That is, even including the record year of 1998 there has still been no warming.

As I’ve stated over and over and over again, climate scientists need at least 30 years of climate data, since there are various other factors (short-term solar cycles, volcanoes, el ninos, etc) that impact the global average temps creating an up and down pattern, with the overall TREND upward since the mid-70s.

According to you, yes, but not according to the scientists actually doing the work. They recognize that even a 20 year period without warming will demonstrate fundamental problems with their models.

Furthermore, those temps they use to show the warming DO NOT INCLUDE the warming of the deep oceans, where some of the warming has been going.

And how do we know it’s going into the oceans? Because they can’t find it anyplace else. Not, I might point out, because they can actually find it in the oceans.

It’s all there for any honest layperson…

What is your excuse, then, for ignoring what even AGW scientists acknowledge?

Ende3r

 

[LeafByNiggle]

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/101 pirates-temp.jpg

As cute as your pirate graph is, it is lacking one thing that global warming theory has, and that is a plausible scientific mechanism for the correlation to be elevated to the level of causation. The observed correlations are not the basis of the theory. They are ony confirmation of the theory.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ignoring the facts is the wrong way to debate. The period without warming goes back to December of 1996. That is, even including the record year of 1998 there has still been no warming.

AGW advocates ignore shorter term trends. Anti-AGW advocates ignore longer term trends. It looks like both sides are guilty of ignoring inconvenient data.

According to you, yes, but not according to the scientists actually doing the work. They recognize that even a 20 year period without warming will demonstrate fundamental problems with their models.

If you are referring to the quote I think you are, then it was a fairly narrow observation about the range of variation of the models of the day. First of all, climate science has not stood still since those models were developed. And secondly, even if those early models were problematic, a failure of a model is not identical to a failure of the theory they are attempting to validate.

 

[ucfengr]

AGW advocates ignore shorter term trends. Anti-AGW advocates ignore longer term trends. It looks like both sides are guilty of ignoring inconvenient data.
.

I think a better case can be made for the opposite being true. 50-100 year trends aren’t in any meaningful way long term when talking about global climate fluctuations .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think a better case can be made for the opposite being true. 50-100 year trends aren’t in any meaningful way long term when talking about global climate fluctuations .

If you are investigating the possible effect of burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale, 50-100 year trends are just about right. 200 or 2000 year trends may be of scientific interest too. But they would have no bearing on deciding the question at hand because the scale of fossil fuel burning has only been exploding for about 150 years.

 

[Theo520]

AGW advocates ignore shorter term trends. Anti-AGW advocates ignore longer term trends. It looks like both sides are guilty of ignoring inconvenient data.

Comparing AGW model projections against the actual temperature record (evidence) is not ignoring inconvenient data. Skeptics dispute the validity of the models, not the longer term temperature record/trend. What we are seeing is completely in line with long term warming and a more modest forcing from CO2.

If you are referring to the quote I think you are, then it was a fairly narrow observation about the range of variation of the models of the day. First of all, climate science has not stood still since those models were developed. And secondly, even if those early models were problematic, a failure of a model is not identical to a failure of the theory they are attempting to validate.

When a theory on degree of forcing is shown wanton, then it should no longer be touted as settled science. The revised models need to pass the scientific method, their projections need to be validated by evidence.

I expect models that show a reduced ECS for CO2 will be validated, which is in-line with the position of most skeptics, assigning a greater weight to nature.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please stay on the topic of the encyclical

 

[estesbob]

As cute as your pirate graph is, it is lacking one thing that global warming theory has, and that is a plausible scientific mechanism for the correlation to be elevated to the level of causation. The observed correlations are not the basis of the theory. They are ony confirmation of the theory.

The model show tha because pirates because they moved around so much their sails blocked sunlight from hitting the ocean .

 

[Ender]

AGW advocates ignore shorter term trends. Anti-AGW advocates ignore longer term trends. It looks like both sides are guilty of ignoring inconvenient data.

This is not true; it is simply invention. The issue is not “trends”, but whether we can explain what is happening with the climate. The theory of AGW posits certain effects in response to specific causes, viz: more CO2 will lead to more warming. The problem of course is that we have had more CO2 but we have not had more warming. That is not a “trend” problem, it is a problem with the theory. As I have pointed out several times, even the AGW scientists recognize the issue. Why is it so hard for you to do as much?

If you are referring to the quote I think you are, then it was a fairly narrow observation about the range of variation of the models of the day. First of all, climate science has not stood still since those models were developed. And secondly, even if those early models were problematic, a failure of a model is not identical to a failure of the theory they are attempting to validate.

I was referring to the quote by von Storch in 2013 when he acknowledged that if warming did not return in the next few years it would demonstrate something “fundamentally” wrong with their climate models. That wasn’t a narrow observation, and a two year old citation hardly refers to “early” models. Finally, if the models fail to represent the actual behavior of the climate, it is in fact strong evidence that the physical processes which control the climate are poorly understood…which is the position of the anti-AGW side.

Now, given all the issues raised about the accuracy of the models, how does this relate to the encyclical? What are we supposed to do when the science itself is unsettled, yet we are being “encouraged” to act as if it wasn’t? If there were doubts about the science, are those doubts any less after the encyclical than before?

Ender