USCCB offers principles for addressing climate change [CWN]

[jwinch2]

Here is a question. In light of the possibility of global warming causing suffering into the next few generations, why would we want to put more CO2 in the air than necessary? Is there any reason to be pro-pollution? WHich of the seven points deserves a hrumph?

Is that what I have stated or given the impression of? I believe that I have continually stated that we should be good stewards of the environment in conformance with Church teaching on the topic. Here is an example (emphasis mine):

In addition, until such time as the Church provides magisterial teaching on what being a good steward of the environment means, I will continue to do what I believe is right to include supporting recycling efforts, donating for the protection and restoration of habitat and endangered species, supporting the reduction of harmful chemicals, increasing cafe standards on vehicles, etc. If, at some point in the future, the Church provides magisterial interpretation of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition which states that I am not going far enough in my efforts, I will give it all due consideration and do my best to develop my conscience accordingly, as I try to do with all Church teaching.

Does that sound like I am pro-pollution to you?

My original comment to this thread simply stated that I thought the bishops would be better served framing their documents in line with defined Church teaching, rather than embracing a scientific hypothesis which many dispute and which has become such a political football. At no point have I stated that we should ignore Church teaching on the subject of the environment. Does the fact that I felt the bishops would be better served not to frame their positions in relation to global warming really mean that I am in support of pollution? Really?

I have also simply stated that some things are not actually part of Church teaching and thus, should not be presented as such. I have also pointed out that the science is not as clear as some what have us believe when it comes to the issue of global warming. However, so that there is no misunderstanding, let me state for the record that I believe we have a moral obligation to take good care of the environment, ensure that the world’s resources are used properly with a preferential option to take care of the poor, and that we pass things on to future generations in a state which is hopefully better than we found it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is that what I have stated or given the impression of? I believe that I have continually stated that we should be good stewards of the environment in conformance with Church teaching on the topic. Here is an example (emphasis mine):

Does that sound like I am pro-pollution to you?

My original comment to this thread simply stated that I thought the bishops would be better served framing their documents in line with defined Church teaching, rather than embracing a scientific hypothesis which many dispute and which has become such a political football. At no point have I stated that we should ignore Church teaching on the subject of the environment. Does the fact that I felt the bishops would be better served not to frame their positions in relation to global warming really mean that I am in support of pollution? Really?

I have also simply stated that some things are not actually part of Church teaching and thus, should not be presented as such. I have also pointed out that the science is not as clear as some what have us believe when it comes to the issue of global warming. However, so that there is no misunderstanding, let me state for the record that I believe we have a moral obligation to take good care of the environment, ensure that the world’s resources are used properly with a preferential option to take care of the poor, and that we pass things on to future generations in a state which is hopefully better than we found it.

You might find this of interest. ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

This man is getting increasing attention because, while he DOES believe fuel burning adds to global warming, he says he believes desertification is the greater cause. Of real interest is that he says the 'cure" for it is to increase the presence of grazing animals on the vast percentage of the earth that isn’t good for anything else…including places now considered to have become hopelessly desertified.

He claims that the lack of “mob grazing” in areas that are alternatively humid and dry causes “micro climates” that, when they become big enough, create “macro climates”. It’s hard to dispute what he has to say, especially if one looks at the “before” and “after” shots he demonstrates in the presentation.

I am particularly impressed with this point of view because I, myself, did his “cure” quite accidentally during last summer’s drought. Without becoming tedious in the explanation, I “mob grazed” a “drought killed” area. The result looked awful…that is until the grass came back better than in areas other ranchers had tried to “preserve” by keeping animals off.

This whole concept is getting a lot of attention in the ranching world. Go ahead and watch the short film. I think you will be amazed. If he’s right, and I believe he is, we could be doing ourselves a great disservice by the current emphasis on vegan and near-vegan dietary practices, and PARTICULARLY by those who claim somehow we’ll save the world from starvation by farming current grasslands.

 

[Ender]

You might find this of interest.

Thank you for putting out the link for this lecture. You’re right - it was extremely interesting.

If he’s right, and I believe he is, we could be doing ourselves a great disservice by the current emphasis on vegan and near-vegan dietary practices, and PARTICULARLY by those who claim somehow we’ll save the world from starvation by farming current grasslands.

What a politically incorrect solution: we can return the Earth’s CO2 amount to pre-industrial era levels by raising more cattle, sheep, and goats. I guess I can now say I am contributing my part to reducing global warming by adding beef to my diet. Who knew that McDonald’s was at the forefront of the solution to global warming?

One other point that should not go unremarked was his comment about how implementing what everyone knew to be the right solution simply made things worse. A cautionary tale if ever there was one.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I will stay tuned and see if this others are able to replicate this experiment and if there is some further evidence for it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for putting out the link for this lecture. You’re right - it was extremely interesting.
What a politically incorrect solution: we can return the Earth’s CO2 amount to pre-industrial era levels by raising more cattle, sheep, and goats. I guess I can now say I am contributing my part to reducing global warming by adding beef to my diet. Who knew that McDonald’s was at the forefront of the solution to global warming?

One other point that should not go unremarked was his comment about how implementing what everyone knew to be the right solution simply made things worse. A cautionary tale if ever there was one.

Ender

History is replete with the failures of “right solutions”.

 

[pnewton]

History is replete with the failures of “right solutions”.

I think one should be cautious about jumping the gun that this Allan Savory is on to something. He may be the failing “right solution.” One of the great shortcomings of environement science is so little of it is done blind, being funded by industry that wants excuse to pollute, or environmentalists seeking bigger and bigger grants from the anti-industrial side, both in governement and in the tree-hugging private sector.

I am not switching sides. Like others here, I am in the middle and have no side. I have my doubts that man is the prime mover in global warming, but I consider the cause of the problem somewhat irrelevant. The solution to mitigating harmful climate change is more important than blame. Cause is only relevant to the extent it can help with a solution.

In all of this, I think the statement of the bishops still give good principles to follow in making policy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will stay tuned and see if this others are able to replicate this experiment and if there is some further evidence for it.

Rapid rotation and “Mob grazing” have been popular with ranchers for quite awhile, but for other reasons. Its favorable production results have been very heavily studied and documented for some time now. But, again, it has been done for other reasons. One would need to alter existing rapid rotation and mob grazing practices just a bit to follow what Savory is recommending, but not by much. Everybody knows you get more grass production by rapid rotation of large numbers through pastures. There are reasons for that. What has not gotten attention is the improved decomposition, nutrient fixation and moisture retention effects from trampling residues.

One difference would be that current rapid rotation does not encourage robust growth of nearly inedible seed stems, whereas, to obtain Savory’s desired effect, one would want to encourage that.

 

[Ender]

I think one should be cautious about jumping the gun that this Allan Savory is on to something. He may be the failing “right solution.”… I am in the middle and have no side.

If you are justified in having no side it must surely be true that the church has no side either.

I consider the cause of the problem somewhat irrelevant.

If we don’t understand the cause (or causes) then we cannot possibly mitigate the problem except by accident. Many people attribute one of the causes of AGW to animals, specifically farmed animals like cattle and recommend diminishing their population while Savory is saying something very nearly the opposite: it is grazing animals that could be the solution.

In all of this, I think the statement of the bishops still give good principles to follow in making policy.

So, we don’t know the causes of global warming but the opinions of the bishops as to its solutions should be taken seriously and, if lynnvinc is to be believed, constitute a moral obligation. Why is that? What principles are involved in the debate? Is not the entire debate about (a) whether AGW is happening, (b) if so, what are its causes, and (c) what, if anything can and should be done about it? There are no moral principles involved so exactly how is (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops useful? Do not their comments imply that there is a moral choice involved so that one side is less moral than the other? If that is so then how do you justify not having taken a side?

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think one should be cautious about jumping the gun that this Allan Savory is on to something. He may be the failing “right solution.” One of the great shortcomings of environement science is so little of it is done blind, being funded by industry that wants excuse to pollute, or environmentalists seeking bigger and bigger grants from the anti-industrial side, both in governement and in the tree-hugging private sector.

I am not switching sides. Like others here, I am in the middle and have no side. I have my doubts that man is the prime mover in global warming, but I consider the cause of the problem somewhat irrelevant. The solution to mitigating harmful climate change is more important than blame. Cause is only relevant to the extent it can help with a solution.

In all of this, I think the statement of the bishops still give good principles to follow in making policy.

I don’t think anybody has any “miracle solutions” to much of anything, and I am not a believer in MMGW. Still, I do see merit in getting the ground “mulched” with dry matter like seed stems. That’s exactly what I did last year before I ever heard of Savory. I just lucked into the end result, which was better than that of others who did other things to save their grass and cattle during a horrendous drought. It was dramatically better.

Whether it really does anything for “global warming” is something I don’t know. Since I don’t believe in MMGW anyway, I’m not doing it for that reason.

But it makes sense. During drought years my grandfather used to scratch the surface of his strawberry fields with a harrow after even the slightest rain in order to interrupt capillary action that would otherwise draw that little moisture to the surface where it would evaporate. Dryland farmers out in western Kansas do that in their wheat fields. They will actually “harrow snow under” for the same reason.

It would be interesting, of course, if Savory is right. It would make a lot of “conventional wisdom” look anything but wise.

 

[pnewton]

If you are justified in having no side it must surely be true that the church has no side either…So, we don’t know the causes of global warming but the opinions of the bishops as to its solutions should be taken seriously…

There were no solutions in the letter. None were asked for. Moral principles were requested and given.

 

[lynnvinc]

A better example might be to consider Church position on evolution. The Church has not specifically endorsed evolution, despite far more clear scientific support than exists for global warming. The strongest statements I have seen on the matter are that the theory of evolution does not contradict Church teaching. However, nowhere that I have seen does the Church require assent or dissent from the theory of evolution.

Perhaps it is not a good example, but it is what comes to mind when I see this. I honestly cannot see the Church at anytime formally endorsing something such as this and requiring Catholics to assent to it as doctrine.

I used to say that not accepting evolution is fine, just memorize it for the test (in the context of me teaching evolution in anthropology).

I used to say not accepting evolution is not harmful, while not accepting climate change and failing to mitigate it could cause enormous harm and death to people for 100s, perhaps 1000s of years.

Now I say not accepting evolution and spreading disbelief in it may actually be a sin, just as lying is a sin. (Assuming people consider lying a sin.)

And it seems JPII has something to say about it: “Truth cannot contractict truth” (see ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm ).

RE the climate science on climate change, it seems to me disrespectful, perhaps even slanderous to claim that 1000s of climate scientists are lying on the issue, or are in some vast conspiracy to defraud people.

 

[lynnvinc]

…To the extent that you continue to suggest that the science is 95% settled, I will point out that when researchers say that they have a 95% confidence in a situation, they are referring to a criterion alpha value of p=0.05. This means that, given the same situation, the same process, methods, statistical treatments, etc. they are 95% sure they would get the same result. In no way does this mean they are 95% sure they answered the question correctly. The model they used, the methods of data collection, their choice of statistical treatments, etc. could be entirely wrong, and they could still have 95% confidence in their results, because all it means is that if they did the exact same things in the same way, they are 95% sure they would get the same outcome. The reality is that those who say otherwise are guilty of misinterpretations and over-generalizations which are not reflective of how research or statistical analysis works.

Precisely. Which just goes to show how cautious, conservative, and reticent scientists are in making claims – requiring .05 on the null (95% confidence). It is understandable that they need to strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims, or their reputations will be harmed. They cannot afford to be “the boy who called wolf.”

However, our Church calls us to be prudent in avoiding sin and harm to others. RE climate change and any serious risk, we should be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to mitigate serious harms. We do not need 95% confidence or even 50% that a chemical is poisonous to stop putting it in our children’s juice, and we certainly do not need 95% confidence that global warming is real, human caused, and projected to cause great harms to start turning off lights not in use and the myriad of other things we can and should do to mitigate this problem. You’d think we would not want to be “the villagers who get eaten up by the wolf” (the more important moral to that story).

Since the first scientific studies reached the .05 on the null re anthropogenic climate change back in 1995 (with a theory going back over 100 years), there have been 1000s of other studies, and the science has become ever stronger and more robust, with evidence from many different angles. Scientists are a competitive bunch and quick to point out the mistakes of other scientists, and anthropogenic climate change has withstood all sorts of queries and studies, from all different sides, that have striven to disprove it.

And the science on figuring out the impacts of climate change has become ever more robust and alarming, with many more harms and much more serious consequences projected than what they were projecting some 30 or even 20 years ago. (I’ve been following the science like a hawk.)

I started out mitigating some 22 years ago with my main concern the harm to food production in poor countries leading to famine – esp from more frequent and extreme droughts. Now my concern is for people of all areas on into the future, and from a plethora of harms.

I really cannot understand why people are not honed into this issue, up on the science, and doing whatever they can to mitigate it, but are instead putting forth a lot of effort to dissuade others from mitigating it. It just boggles my mind and pierces my heart.

 

[Ridgerunner]

RE the climate science on climate change, it seems to me disrespectful, perhaps even slanderous to claim that 1000s of climate scientists are lying on the issue, or are in some vast conspiracy to defraud people.

Of course, there’s really no such thing as a “climate scientist” per se. There are people who are touted as “climate scientists” from all over the scientific spectrum, from oceanographers, to dendrologists, to statisticians, to geographers, to astrophysicists, on and on. Some are meteorologists.

It is of some interest that the majority of meteorologists do not believe in MMGW. Anticipating the argument that they are somehow inferior “scientists” to be addressing “climate change”, one has to note that they at least do study the conditions that affect temperatures, moisture, atmospheric influences, in short, that which they study and prognosticate about every single day. And, they do not depend on political people for their livelihoods. They depend for their livelihoods on the judgments of people who judge them based on the accuracy of what they report.

A “climate scientist” whose specialty is actually geology or whatever, can predict worldwide catastrophe from MMGW thirty years from now with reasonable certitude that he will never be held to account for his predictions. A meteorologist answers for his predictions daily.

 

[lynnvinc]

Of course, there’s really no such thing as a “climate scientist” per se…

It’s true of any new field that scientists in that field come from other fields. When anthropology was relatively new Franz Boas (PhD physics) and others with very different degrees became founders of modern anthropology. Likewise criminology/criminal justice; many CJ faculty and researchers are still being drawn from outside CJ.

Likewise with climate science. Many climate scientists have doctorates in other areas, but then go into climate science and focus their studies on it. That’s what makes them climate scientists, not their terminal degree. So there actually is a such thing as a “climate scientist” and most certainly “climate science.” No one would call Boas a physicist – he is well known as an anthropologist.

Another issue is that climate science is such a complex field, involving the multitude of earth systems and solar dynamics, paleoclimatology, etc. One would want climate scientists to come from a very wide range of backgrounds.

Now what makes one a climate scientist and not just an amateur is the level of research they put into climate science topics, resulting in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Peer-review is a necessary cause for establishing a scientist as a climate scientist, but not a sufficient cause, as bad studies do sometimes get thru…which is true for every field. It’s more about whether the research and conclusions stand the test of time and being redone, questioned, probed, and picked apart by other climate scientists.

Meteorologists are NOT climate scientists (unless they do climate research). We had a NWS meteorologist give a talk at our campus about climate change, and the first thing he said was “I am not a climate science, but I have made it a spare-time hobby of extreme interest, and will base my talk on what I have learned and read about climate change.” (Note: weather is not the same as climate; climate is the aggregate of weather – you cannot use a climate atlas to predict rain on a certain day, and you cannot say rain on a certain day proves or disprove climate change.)

Geologists are also NOT climate scientists, unless they are doing research and publishing on climate science in peer-review science journals. I’ve found that I know more about certain aspects of climate science that some geology professors on my campus (like the difference between climate forcings and feedbacks) – and I am certainly NOT a climate scientist.

There was an interesting case of a physicist, Richard Muller, who thought he could disprove climate change, and did a statistical study (supported by Koch money, no less). However, by his results convinced him climate change was not only real, but worse than the climate scientists were saying – after which climate scientists pointed out various flaws in his study, and lack of important variables, which when added would jive with their lower findings.

Another case – there were 2 people (a statistician and a mineral engineer funded by fossil fuels) who were out to disprove climate change (which is NOT the way you do science). They did some statistical runs and claimed they had totally disproved climate change. Only problem was they used the celsius scale (with an artifical zero), rather than the kelvin scale (with a true zero), and when the climate scientists pointed that out, and their stats were again run with the correct scale, it turned out they had not disproved climate change. Climate scientist also make mistake, but these are discovered and set aright (or are found to have gone against the general findings).

Science tends to be self-correcting, bec there are always those (like young stallions) who want to best the leaders in the field. Nearly every theory and every piece of evidence gets run through the gauntlet over and over again, until it becomes pretty much unassailable. And that’s were climate change is now – pretty much unassailable. Scientist are by trade skeptical. What skeptics there were in the 1990s, who actually engaged in doing climate science research of high quality, have now come to accept climate science. It’s pretty much a done deal.

But as I’ve mentioned over and over, I did not need 95% confidence on single studies, and certainly not the science to be robust, with many studies from many different angles, to start mitigating back in 1990 what could be very serious harms to life on earth, and neither did JPII or BXVI.

Science is theory AND evidence, and the greenhouse gas theory has been around for over 100 years. I learned it decades ago, so the writing was pretty much on the wall re what would happen with more and more GHGs in the atmosphere (apparently last year’s increase was greater than previous years). However, I really only became aware of possible negative impacts greatly threatening peoples lives and subsistence in the late 1980s, which is my lame excuse for not mitigating it earlier.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s true of any new field that scientists in that field come from other fields. When anthropology was relatively new Franz Boas (PhD physics) and others with very different degrees became founders of modern anthropology. Likewise criminology/criminal justice; many CJ faculty and researchers are still being drawn from outside CJ.

Likewise with climate science. Many climate scientists have doctorates in other areas, but then go into climate science and focus their studies on it. That’s what makes them climate scientists, not their terminal degree. So there actually is a such thing as a “climate scientist” and most certainly “climate science.” No one would call Boas a physicist – he is well known as an anthropologist.

Another issue is that climate science is such a complex field, involving the multitude of earth systems and solar dynamics, paleoclimatology, etc. One would want climate scientists to come from a very wide range of backgrounds.

Now what makes one a climate scientist and not just an amateur is the level of research they put into climate science topics, resulting in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Peer-review is a necessary cause for establishing a scientist as a climate scientist, but not a sufficient cause, as bad studies do sometimes get thru…which is true for every field. It’s more about whether the research and conclusions stand the test of time and being redone, questioned, probed, and picked apart by other climate scientists.

Meteorologists are NOT climate scientists (unless they do climate research). We had a NWS meteorologist give a talk at our campus about climate change, and the first thing he said was “I am not a climate science, but I have made it a spare-time hobby of extreme interest, and will base my talk on what I have learned and read about climate change.” (Note: weather is not the same as climate; climate is the aggregate of weather – you cannot use a climate atlas to predict rain on a certain day, and you cannot say rain on a certain day proves or disprove climate change.)

Another case – there were 2 people (a statistician and a mineral engineer funded by fossil fuels) who were out to disprove climate change (which is NOT the way you do science). They did some statistical runs and claimed they had totally disproved climate change. Only problem was they used the celsius scale (with an artifical zero), rather than the kelvin scale (with a true zero), and when the climate scientists pointed that out, and their stats were again run with the correct scale, it turned out they had not disproved climate change. Climate scientist also make mistake, but these are discovered and set aright (or are found to have gone against the general findings).

Science tends to be self-correcting, bec there are always those (like young stallions) who want to best the leaders in the field. Nearly every theory and every piece of evidence gets run through the gauntlet over and over again, until it becomes pretty much unassailable. And that’s were climate change is now – pretty much unassailable. Scientist are by trade skeptical. What skeptics there were in the 1990s, who actually engaged in doing climate science research of high quality, have now come to accept climate science. It’s pretty much a done deal.

But as I’ve mentioned over and over, I did not need 95% confidence on single studies, and certainly not the science to be robust, with many studies from many different angles, to start mitigating back in 1990 what could be very serious harms to life on earth, and neither did JPII or BXVI.

Science is theory AND evidence, and the greenhouse gas theory has been around for over 100 years. I learned it decades ago, so the writing was pretty much on the wall re what would happen with more and more GHGs in the atmosphere (apparently last year’s increase was greater than previous years). However, I really only became aware of possible negative impacts greatly threatening peoples lives and subsistence in the late 1980s, which is my lame excuse for not mitigating it earlier.

I knew you would put meterologists down, and predicted that, and you duly did. Nevertheless, they actually do know what affects climates and changes and atmospherics and the interactions of heat, cold and humidity. And they have to utilize it before a critical audience daily and pass an objective standard in doing so.

The scientists and non-scientists from a variety of fields of specialization and education who style themselves “climate scientists” purport to project climatic changes for each other and for the interest groups that want to see their point of view substantiated. Those projections are so long-range that they needn’t fear losing their jobs (which are in other fields anyway and often tenured) before they get paid in full.

It’s like the difference between the self-styled “economist” who promises that gold will be at $10,000 by 2020 and has charts and graphs that “prove it”, versus the guy who has to project for the meat packer what the price of cattle will be tomorrow. The former has little or no accountability. The latter does.

 

[lynnvinc]

I knew you would put meterologists down, and predicted that, and you duly did. Nevertheless, they actually do know what affects climates and changes and atmospherics and the interactions of heat, cold and humidity. And they have to utilize it before a critical audience daily and pass an objective standard in doing so.

The scientists and non-scientists from a variety of fields of specialization and education who style themselves “climate scientists” purport to project climatic changes for each other and for the interest groups that want to see their point of view substantiated. Those projections are so long-range that they needn’t fear losing their jobs (which are in other fields anyway and often tenured) before they get paid in full.

It’s like the difference between the self-styled “economist” who promises that gold will be at $10,000 by 2020 and has charts and graphs that “prove it”, versus the guy who has to project for the meat packer what the price of cattle will be tomorrow. The former has little or no accountability. The latter does.

No, I’m not putting meteorologists down. I think they do a very fine job predicting weather, which is very fickle, as we know. I never blame them if it rains when they said it would not rain. And the NWS meteorologist we invited to speak, we did so because he was an expert in and could tell us something about hurricanes and droughts in the Rio Grande Valley (and Texas, in general), and he was great on explaining el nino/la nina patterns, etc. However, he was honest enough to say he was NOT an climate scientist, though he was very knowledgeable about climate science.

Also there could be climate scientists who started out as meteorologists – or are doing work and research in both areas of meteorology and climate science…esp as these areas overlap and dove-tail at some point.

If you believe in conspiracy theories re climate scientists, I can give you the real conspiracy
– click the arrow

.

I might be good for people to actually contact climate scientists and interact with them. They are very smart people who are not in it for the money (note that grant money does not increase their salaries, but only pays for research costs). And they are in it despite slander against them, and even some death threats against them and their children. As human beings they care about their children and grandchildren’s future, and are worried about what they are finding out re climate change.

About 20 years ago I actually thought that climate scientists (meek and reticient, as I wrongly perceived them to be) would get on the bandwagon and sell their souls to the dev-oils, as a few were doing at the time, and engage in climate fake-science/red-herring-derailments/strawmen-arguments/kicking-dead-horses/etc, and there’d be no one left to do legitimate climate science. I’ve been so pleased they have the staying power. They are true heroes of today. No wonder the general public wants to crucify them, kill the messenger, so to speak.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I’m not putting meteorologists down. I think they do a very fine job predicting weather, which is very fickle, as we know. I never blame them if it rains when they said it would not rain. And the NWS meteorologist we invited to speak, we did so because he was an expert in and could tell us something about hurricanes and droughts in the Rio Grande Valley (and Texas, in general), and he was great on explaining el nino/la nina patterns, etc. However, he was honest enough to say he was NOT an climate scientist, though he was very knowledgeable about climate science.

Also there could be climate scientists who started out as meteorologists – or are doing work and research in both areas of meteorology and climate science…esp as these areas overlap and dove-tail at some point.

If you believe in conspiracy theories re climate scientists, I can give you the real conspiracy
– click the arrow

I might be good for people to actually contact climate scientists and interact with them. They are very smart people who are not in it for the money (note that grant money does not increase their salaries, but only pays for research costs). And they are in it despite slander against them, and even some death threats against them and their children. As human beings they care about their children and grandchildren’s future, and are worried about what they are finding out re climate change.

About 20 years ago I actually thought that climate scientists (meek and reticient, as I wrongly perceived them to be) would get on the bandwagon and sell their souls to the dev-oils, as a few were doing at the time, and engage in climate fake-science/red-herring-derailments/strawmen-arguments/kicking-dead-horses/etc, and there’d be no one left to do legitimate climate science. I’ve been so pleased they have the staying power. They are true heroes of today. No wonder the general public wants to crucify them, kill the messenger, so to speak.

Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a “climate scientist” per se. They’re all something else. The closest thing to “climate scientists” in a true sense of the word are the meterologists, and most of them do not believe in MMGW.

 

[Ender]

Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a “climate scientist” per se.

But of course the issue here is not whether there are climate scientists or whether or not whoever works in a related field knows what he’s talking about. The question is whether the bishops know anything about it and whether, because they are not scientists of any kind, their opinions on AGW are useful.

In the TED lecture given by Allan Savory he made the statement that if nations adopted his fairly simply approach to the reversal of the desertification of continents we could remove gargantuan amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and pretty much solve the entire problem. Now, who in his right mind would think to ask the bishops for their opinion of Savory’s theory? The point being, if they are not qualified to comment on his theory why would we think them competent to comment on AGW or any other scientific question?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I knew you would put meterologists down, and predicted that, and you duly did.

I gave it a 30% chance of being mentioned with variable winds gusting to 20 mph.

You are to be commended for the first accurate meterological prediction (sort of) in the history of meterology.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But of course the issue here is not whether there are climate scientists or whether or not whoever works in a related field knows what he’s talking about. The question is whether the bishops know anything about it and whether, because they are not scientists of any kind, their opinions on AGW are useful.

In the TED lecture given by Allan Savory he made the statement that if nations adopted his fairly simply approach to the reversal of the desertification of continents we could remove gargantuan amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and pretty much solve the entire problem. Now, who in his right mind would think to ask the bishops for their opinion of Savory’s theory? The point being, if they are not qualified to comment on his theory why would we think them competent to comment on AGW or any other scientific question?

Ender

First of all, I do not consider some USCCB spokesman to be “the bishops”, even if the spokesman is a bishop. We have too many vaguely worded pronouncements on politically hot topics from one or two of them now and then, but with nothing all the bishops endorse.

And no, I wouldn’t expect them to know what Savory says, let alone to have any of the experience one would have to have in order to have actually observed the effect.