Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change

[Cathoholic]

BTW, I care more about what Pope Francis (has) to say about climate change . . .

Then I want to challenge you lynnvinc, to affirm ALL of what Pope Francis asserts.

And don’t invent things Pope Francis is NOT saying.

That’s all.

You have a right to your opinion. And I support you in that lynnvinc. And I think your heart is in the right place.

But I also think some of your environment beliefs could be more in line with the fullness of Catholic teaching.

(Would it even matter if I showed WHY the 99% claim is false? )

 

[lynnvinc]

Then I want to challenge you lynnvinc, to affirm ALL of what Pope Francis asserts.

And don’t invent things Pope Francis is NOT saying.

That’s all.

You have a right to your opinion. And I support you in that lynnvinc. And I think your heart is in the right place.

But I also think some of your environment beliefs could be more in line with the fullness of Catholic teaching.

(Would it even matter if I showed WHY the 99% claim is false? )

i’ll respond later, my hand ishand broken, husband going into hospital for pneumonia
. no time now

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then I want to challenge you lynnvinc, to affirm ALL of what Pope Francis asserts.

And don’t invent things Pope Francis is NOT saying.

That’s all.

You have a right to your opinion. And I support you in that lynnvinc. And I think your heart is in the right place.

But I also think some of your environment beliefs could be more in line with the fullness of Catholic teaching.

(Would it even matter if I showed WHY the 99% claim is false? )

If you are hinting that Lynn is ignoring something Pope Francis is saying, or attributing something to him that he is not saying, just come out and say what it is and save us from having to guess.

As for the 99% claim, since Lynn did not claim what 99% of climate scientists say, there is nothing you can prove is false. All she said was that whatever 99% of climate scientists say, she is interested in that. If you are referring to the Cook study, or studies by Oreskes, Doran, Anderegg, Verheggen, Maibac, and Carlton, I have seen arguments against them that are more fundamentally flawed than the studies they purport to destroy. But if you have one, go ahead and present it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Getting back to the OP…

BTW, I care more about what Pope Francis and 99% of climate scientists have to say about climate change & couldn’t care less about what one outlier (science always has a few outliers) named J. Curry has to say. End of story

That’s too bad because Pope Francis is not a climate expert and is probably getting some bad information.

Also, 99% of climate scientists do not agree on this. In fact many of the people who comment on this are not even scientists nor can they offer qualified opinions.

What any academic would do is go by the quality of research, not the number of people who agree or put forth an appeal-to-authority fallacy.

 

[Cathoholic]

You go ahead LeafbyNiggle.

All she said was that whatever 99% of climate scientists say, she is interested in that.

You go ahead and explain what 99% of climate scientists say.

This will be interesting to hear .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You go ahead LeafbyNiggle.

You go ahead and explain what 99% of climate scientists say.

This will be interesting to hear.

No, I didn’t make any claim about what 99% of climate scientists say. But you seemed to know what Lynn meant well enough to call her claim false. Maybe you should have asked her what you just asked me before calling her claim false.

 

[lynnvinc]

Then I want to challenge you lynnvinc, to affirm ALL of what Pope Francis asserts.

And don’t invent things Pope Francis is NOT saying.

That’s all.

You have a right to your opinion. And I support you in that lynnvinc. And I think your heart is in the right place.

But I also think some of your environment beliefs could be more in line with the fullness of Catholic teaching.

(Would it even matter if I showed WHY the 99% claim is false? )

All 3 past popes have been very concerned about climate change & other serious environmental problems. You can read what they have to say about these directly. Don’t take my word or what the anti-environmental Catholics say in their twisted interpretations.

I suggest reading the whole of Laudato Si by Pope Francis, who explains climate change very well and our need to mitigate it; see – w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Here are just a few excerpts of writings by JPII & BXVI, plus what the US bishops had to say about climate change in 2002 (note that back in 1990 when JPII first spoke about it, it was referred to as “the greenhouse effect”:

“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone…The…‘greenhouse effect’ has now reached crisis proportions…” --Pope John Paul II, “Peace With All Creation,” 1990 www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation…Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010, www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html

From the U.S. Bishops, 2001, “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.shtml :
“We believe our response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation”

“Even though energy resources literally fuel our economy…we need to ask about ways we can conserve energy, prevent pollution, and live more simply.”

"…our response to the challenge of climate change must be rooted in the virtue of prudence…[M]ost experts agree that something significant is happening to the atmosphere. Human behavior and activity are…contributing to a warming of the earth’s climate…

Consequently, it seems prudent…to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.

”We must therefore encourage and support the ‘ecological conversion’ which in recent decades has made humanity more sensitive to the catastrophe to which it has been heading. Man is no longer the Creator’s ‘steward’, but an autonomous despot, who is finally beginning to understand that he must stop at the edge of the abyss." --Pope John Paul II, “God Made Man The Steward of Creation” 2001, www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud20010117en.html

I think part of the problem is how people conceive of the “environment” & “environmental issues” – some thinking it is only about wild (useless) species in wild (useless) places, such as polar bears & rain forests. While it does include these aspects of God’s creation, it is also about the air we people breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the climate in which we grow our crops, resources for our buildings & products, the chemicals that permeate through our bodies, and so on.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect for nearly 200 years & expected there would eventually be warming with increasing industrial emissions. You can read more about that here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History .

I learned about the greenhouse effect from extra science readings in high school in the mid 60s. That helped me understand global warming when it became a big topic in the late 1980s, and I’ve kept up with following the science ever since, and with what the Church is saying.

I know that $billions have been spent on spreading disinformation on climate change, and where the funding for that can be discovered, they find it is mostly the fossil fuel industries funding that fake science (or their front organizations), even tho they have always known the real science of climate change.

Jesus tells us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.

 

[lynnvinc]

That’s too bad because Pope Francis is not a climate expert and is probably getting some bad information…

That of course is what they said about JPII and BXVI. However, this time we have a pope who has a grad degree in science and it is obvious to me has far greater knowledge of and expertise in climate science than the CC doubters here at CAF.

Try reading his Lauato Si…with an open mind.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Would it even matter if I showed WHY the 99% claim is false? )

I just threw that out. It is probably more like 99.9% of working climate scientists who are actually doing research and publishing on climate change.

This issue came up before here at CAF years ago and I asked for publication in science journals by climate scientists who did not accept that at least some global warming has been happening over the past half century & did not accept that was at least in part attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions.

Someone put up a list – probably from some denialist industry site. Most were not climate scientists ane the ones that were, their articles either actually supported climate change or did not address/oppose it.

The list was whittled down to just one physicist who had published an article in an obscure Hungarian science journal, claiming to disprove the greenhouse effect. I guess that would count as part of the 1% that claim global warming is not happening or it is not in any way attributed to human GHG emissions. When I asked some climate scientists about him & the article, they sort of shrugged it off as that’s just him. It seems he was elderly, so he probably is retired by now and not engaged in climate research, so it is now probably 99.9% of working climate scientists still engaged in climate research & publications in respected science journals who accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

Which begs the question of how we good & moral lay people & religious leaders are supposed to act. Well, prudence calls us to mitigate CC, even if there is less than scientific certainty (95% confidence) on it. So I feel thankful to God that my top religious leaders (Catholic) have responded well, in a moral, just & wise way since at least 1990. And that Pope Francis is carrying on that stance to this day.

 

[lynnvinc]

I would invite readers of this thread to go to the link and listen to the Climatologist for yourself.

Listen to ALL of what she says and see if you draw the same conclusion that lynnvinc invented above.

Here it is: video.foxnews.com/v/5273586586001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Watch it for yourself.

Then ask yourself if the Climatologist (that explicitly talks about harassment from the people who have bullied her on the climate change issues and other aspects that in her opinion HURT real unbiased reproducible honest research and conclusions) says ONLY that there are some uncertainties.

Sorry but I don’t have a good connection to see videos where I am now. Could you post the transcript. I was answering above what I knew about Curry over the years, not what she said on the video, which could be wrong since while I do follow climate science studies more closely, I don’t keep up as much with the controversies. No time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s too bad because Pope Francis is not a climate expert and is probably getting some bad information.

Also, 99% of climate scientists do not agree on this. In fact many of the people who comment on this are not even scientists nor can they offer qualified opinions.

What any academic would do is go by the quality of research, not the number of people who agree or put forth an appeal-to-authority fallacy.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to authority when there is no other reliable source of information. You say the quality of the research is what matters, and that an academic would look carefully at that before trusting an authority. But which academic are you going to trust to make that determination for you? Or are you a climate science academic who is capable of analyzing the quality of the research to determine which results to believe and which to discard? Unless you are in that category, you have no choice but to appeal to authority for your position. But for some reason you perhaps have chosen Anthony Watts or Breitbart as your only trusted authorities. If so, I think you have chosen poorly.

As for Pope Francis getting bad information, do you have better information than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? What makes your resources so much more trustworthy than his?

 

[Ender]

It is not a fallacy to appeal to authority when there is no other reliable source of information.

This is true for those cases where information is not available. Climate science, however, is assuredly not one of those cases; there is a plethora of information that is readily available to anyone who cares to look for it.

You say the quality of the research is what matters, and that an academic would look carefully at that before trusting an authority. But which academic are you going to trust to make that determination for you? Or are you a climate science academic who is capable of analyzing the quality of the research to determine which results to believe and which to discard? Unless you are in that category, you have no choice but to appeal to authority for your position.

This isn’t quite accurate. One doesn’t have to be an expert to be able to evaluate the quality of an argument, or to read the analyses and rebuttals of others who can evaluate the original research. There is no need to simply abandon one’s own understanding and just believe what someone else claims. Most people are quite capable of understanding the issues involved here.

But for some reason you perhaps have chosen Anthony Watts or Breitbart as your only trusted authorities. If so, I think you have chosen poorly.

Watts appears to be dismissed not for anything he has personally said, but primarily because of the effectiveness of his blog in casting doubt on the entire climate change debate. It is an approach that relies not on rebutting arguments but of avoiding them altogether. It would seem to appeal most to those who recognize the difficulty of supporting their position and choose to avoid the debate entirely.

As for Pope Francis getting bad information, do you have better information than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? What makes your resources so much more trustworthy than his?

Science is science, and the pope’s opinion on the matter changes nothing. His position here is no more guaranteed to be accurate than was Urban VIII’s opinion regarding Galileo.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is true for those cases where information is not available. Climate science, however, is assuredly not one of those cases; there is a plethora of information that is readily available to anyone who cares to look for it.
This isn’t quite accurate. One doesn’t have to be an expert to be able to evaluate the quality of an argument, or to read the analyses and rebuttals of others who can evaluate the original research. There is no need to simply abandon one’s own understanding and just believe what someone else claims. Most people are quite capable of understanding the issues involved here.

I will have to disagree. Take for example the issue of correcting historical surface readings to make them more accurately comparable to other surface readings. Much has been made of this by those unacquainted with the science of instrumentation saying that the unadjusted readings are more truthful than the adjusted ones. Without an understanding the mathematics involved, and the methods of statistical instrumentation - which is a highly-developed and technical field, the average person is not qualified to pass judgement on these methods.

Watts appears to be dismissed not for anything he has personally said, but primarily because of the effectiveness of his blog in casting doubt on the entire climate change debate.

He has not cast doubt on the climate change debate using scientific methods, but in manipulating misunderstandings about science. But I will grant you that his popular blog is highly effective on the layman.

It is an approach that relies not on rebutting arguments but of avoiding them altogether.

Many of his arguments have been rebutted - some right here in this forum.

Science is science, and the pope’s opinion on the matter changes nothing. His position here is no more guaranteed to be accurate than was Urban VIII’s opinion regarding Galileo.

As a statement in probability, that is clearly false.

 

[Ender]

Take for example the issue of correcting historical surface readings to make them more accurately comparable to other surface readings. Much has been made of this by those unacquainted with the science of instrumentation saying that the unadjusted readings are more truthful than the adjusted ones. Without an understanding the mathematics involved, and the methods of statistical instrumentation - which is a highly-developed and technical field, the average person is not qualified to pass judgement on these methods.

To say that some issues are too complicated for the layman says nothing whatever about whether most issues are beyond his competence. An example cannot refute a generality.

He has not cast doubt on the climate change debate using scientific methods, but in manipulating misunderstandings about science. But I will grant you that his popular blog is highly effective on the layman.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, how can you claim the ability to find flaws in Watts’ arguments while simultaneously claiming laymen lack such capabilities?

Many of his arguments have been rebutted - some right here in this forum.

I’m sure that many of his arguments have been disputed, but that’s not the same as rebutting them. Again, how can you claim they have been rebutted by other laymen if laymen lack the ability to rebut arguments about science?

As a statement in probability, that is clearly false.

I put this in the category with believing climate change is clearly true: a statement of faith, not fact.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To say that some issues are too complicated for the layman says nothing whatever about whether most issues are beyond his competence. An example cannot refute a generality.

That was just an example. And it is a crucial one because it is one of the chief ways in which doubt is cast on climate science. It is reasonable to think that if there is one such area, there are others.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, how can you claim the ability to find flaws in Watts’ arguments while simultaneously claiming laymen lack such capabilities?

One flaw that I can see in Watt’s arguments is in the area of statistics, which happens to be an area in which I do have some professional training and competence.

I’m sure that many of his arguments have been disputed, but that’s not the same as rebutting them.

I said rebutted and I meant it. I did not mean disputed.

Again, how can you claim they have been rebutted by other laymen…

I would not believe other laymen just because they said they rebutted Watts. But I do trust scientists, who have proven track record of being right about scientific questions more often than non-scientists.

 

[Ender]

I would not believe other laymen just because they said they rebutted Watts. But I do trust scientists, who have proven track record of being right about scientific questions more often than non-scientists.

There are scientists on both sides of this debate. In fact much of what Watts does is simply to reference the comments made by scientists who themselves are attacking this or that point made by the ‘other’ side. How can you say you trust “scientists” when the scientists themselves disagree?

The point I’m making here is that the effort to get people to dismiss Watts should be seen for what it is: an unwillingness or an inability to directly engage the arguments presented on his blog. An argument is valid or invalid based on its logic and the science that supports it, not on the credentials of the person who presents it. The irony of the “ignore Watts” faction is that he often references mainline (e.g. NOAA) documents. Do those sources become invalid simply because Watts refers to them?

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are scientists on both sides of this debate. In fact much of what Watts does is simply to reference the comments made by scientists who themselves are attacking this or that point made by the ‘other’ side. How can you say you trust “scientists” when the scientists themselves disagree?

I look at how many agree and disagree.

The point I’m making here is that the effort to get people to dismiss Watts should be seen for what it is: an unwillingness or an inability to directly engage the arguments presented on his blog.

You assume that “engaging directly in the arguments presented” is something a layman is qualified to do.

An argument is valid or invalid based on its logic and the science that supports it, not on the credentials of the person who presents it.

But if you don’t have the competence to understand to logic and the science then you would not be qualified to evaluate the validity of an opposing argument.

The irony of the “ignore Watts” faction is that he often references mainline (e.g. NOAA) documents. Do those sources become invalid simply because Watts refers to them?

Those sources do not say that climate change is a hoax, but Watts, looking at those NOAA documents, concludes that it is. It strains credulity that a conclusion follows from this data that is so simple that you and I could understand it, and yet it would be missed by everyone at NOAA. So we would have to assume that the scientists at NOAA have not missed it, but are deliberately violating their apparent scientific integrity and independence by ignoring these obvious conclusions. That means there must quite a large conspiracy among these scientists to deceive. That also strains credulity to believe such a thing without overwhelming evidence that there is some force in place maintaining such a conspiracy. So by reductio ad absurdum, I cannot accept what Watts proposes.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sorry but I don’t have a good connection to see videos where I am now. Could you post the transcript. I was answering above what I knew about Curry over the years, not what she said on the video, which could be wrong since while I do follow climate science studies more closely, I don’t keep up as much with the controversies. No time.

I was finally able to see it on youtube, and I don’t think anything I said earlier was terrible off mark. Here are a few of her words:

“…the way the questions are framed about the consensus, yes it’s warming and yes humans are contributing to it. Everybody agrees with that and I’m in the 98% that agree…”

She admits she is part of the 98% that accept warming is occurring and that it is at least in part due to human activity. Her main point is that she thinks there is large uncertainty about how much is due to human activity, but she does not discount it could be a lot, only that from her perspective we don’t really know and cannot make claims at a high level of scientific confidence.

I have no problem with that. There are also some climate scientist outliers at the other extreme who say there is good evidence to make such claims and that if we let CC go on it may cause dire problems on into the future for the young and for future generations. And then the bulk of climate scientists are somewhere in the middle.

I was also not wrong in talking about the conflict btw J. Curry and other climate scientist – that is why she resigned and feels she’s been treated badly by them. I mentioned that under the circumstances of climate scientist being harassed and threatened – the anti-environmental community having made it into a political issue – one can understand why some climate scientists treated her badly for her critique of their work.

It happens in every field – opposing sides (who both accept the basics) get into serious wrangles.

 

[Holly3278]

I know that there are some climate change skeptics on this forum but I am definitely not one of them. Therefore, I am glad that Pope Francis is taking action on this issue.

 

[lynnvinc]

I know that there are some climate change skeptics on this forum but I am definitely not one of them. Therefore, I am glad that Pope Francis is taking action on this issue.

Thanks. You’ve just reduced my demoralization level a bit.