Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How many statements denouncing climate change denial does the Vatican have to put out for conservative Catholics to change their mind?
 
lemongrass80 said:
Actually, the very nature of science is always questioning. [Scientists] do not have motivation, in general, to support certain beliefs.
Click to expand...
Because scientists and lawyers like to eat and pay their bills, they ** almost always** have motivation to support given positions, despite the facts. That’s the very nature of the business–shameless spin, political ideology and worse. Scientists at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences are not immune. catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1092

LAUDATO SI’
188. “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”

Here’s hoping honest and open debate will come to replace what we have today. In the meantime, the opinion of the Vatican’s U N envoy can not honestly be put forward as the Catholic position. The actual Catholic position is as stated by the Holy Father in #188 above.
 
Science is devoid of bias or opinion, or else it is not science.
The same cannot be said of scientists, whose livelihoods are dependent on getting the results that their sponsors are paying for in the first place.

Scientists have been caught with their fingers on the scale on the climate change issue.

Follow the money trail.
 
KSU said:
Because scientists and lawyers like to eat and pay their bills, they ** almost always** have motivation to support given positions, despite the facts.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. Good scientists have no trouble paying the bills. They are in high demand. And after their basic needs are met, scientists are generally motivated by the desire for fame. You don’t get fame by agreeing to established positions. You get fame by finding a new and surprising result. There is much more motivation to disprove GW than to prove it. And if you want financial motivation to disprove GW, there is plenty of that too - from industry. Not that it matters, because as I said, scientists are not starving.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Science is devoid of bias or opinion, or else it is not science.
The same cannot be said of scientists, whose livelihoods are dependent on getting the results that their sponsors are paying for in the first place.

Scientists have been caught with their fingers on the scale on the climate change issue.

Follow the money trail.
Click to expand...
Including the money from Exxon. And the basic data to support climate change does not rest on corrupted data. The adjustments you refer to have been openly explained. That is why you know about them.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Including the money from Exxon. And the basic data to support climate change does not rest on corrupted data. The adjustments you refer to have been openly explained. That is why you know about them.
Click to expand...
The basic data that supports climate change doesn’t support the climate models and their projections.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Including the money from Exxon. And the basic data to support climate change does not rest on corrupted data. The adjustments you refer to have been openly explained. That is why you know about them.
Click to expand...
What are you excluding in your analysis?

Do you believe that only Exxon is funding global warming science?
Do you believe that they are the major player?

Finger on the scale means a finger on the scale, nothing more nothing less. That is not science. That is skewing of the data for political reasons, which I doubt that Exxon would have funded.
I don’t think that Exxon was paying for them to put their fingers on the scale anyway.

They were getting their funding from someone though.

Follow the money trail.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
It is a very grave error for bishops to involve themselves in partisan politics and scientific debates, with the exception of human life/human morality/religious freedom issues. Bishops should not be dictating economic or political systems.
Click to expand...
Here is a partial list of Catholic and Orthodox bishops and saints who have spoken and written on political issues:

St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I. I’m sure there are many more.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Do you believe that only Exxon is funding global warming science?
Click to expand...
…Only to the degree that you believe that only a conspiracy of overbearing and corrupt governments are funding climate science. Quite frankly, I don’t believe either extreme. If you look at the history of scientists you find many who did science as a serious hobby for no pay, some of them putting their own personal resources at risk in the process. The motivation has always been the same - to find something new and to make a name for themselves in the process. I don’t believe either Exxon or government are capable of so perverting this drive to such an extent.
Finger on the scale means a finger on the scale, nothing more nothing less. That is not science. That is skewing of the data for political reasons…
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but as I said, the adjustments to land-based measurements were well-publicized by the people who made them - not something you would do if you were trying for deception. Furthermore, the scientific basis and necessity for those adjustments in terms of calibrating for local conditions has been explained by those same people.
 
Alex_H said:
How many statements denouncing climate change denial does the Vatican have to put out for conservative Catholics to change their mind?
Click to expand...
Climate change real or not, is in the realm of science not faith.

I do not get scientific direction from the Vatican and I don’t think I should.
 
Alex_H said:
How many statements denouncing climate change denial does the Vatican have to put out for conservative Catholics to change their mind?
Click to expand...
Climate change is a matter for science to determine. Statements from the Vatican are irrelevant to the science involved, and are no more proper on this subject than the statements from Urban VIII on whether the sun circled the Earth.

Ender
 
Darryl1958 said:
Science is devoid of bias or opinion, or else it is not science.
The same cannot be said of scientists, whose livelihoods are dependent on getting the results that their sponsors are paying for in the first place.

Scientists have been caught with their fingers on the scale on the climate change issue.

Follow the money trail.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Tony_Micelli said:
people are entitled to opinions and not facts, and the facts are clear for anyone willing to listen to them: global warming is very real, very serious, and demands action for catholics because the poor will be affected the most in a negative way.

just because northern countries may be less adversely affected is no excuse for inaction.
Click to expand...
Actually the poor Will be affected much more negatively by the proposed solutions to this “problem”.
 
Sarcelle said:
Climate change real or not, is in the realm of science not faith.

I do not get scientific direction from the Vatican and I don’t think I should.
Click to expand...
Ender said:
Climate change is a matter for science to determine. Statements from the Vatican are irrelevant to the science involved, and are no more proper on this subject than the statements from Urban VIII on whether the sun circled the Earth.

Ender
Click to expand...
That still leaves open the question of where a reasonable person does get information on this matter. Statements from the Vatican may not carry scientific authenticity, but they do point to the importance of the matter, so that the question may not be casually dismissed, the same way you might casually dismiss the question of who will win the World Series this year.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
We really need to start getting our science news from reputable publications and not the supermarket tabloids.
Click to expand...
And not from the left, which is using scientists to make all these doomsday predictions in the first place.

If only it were tabloids that was driving all these scary stories.

It is not. It is not Exxon either. It is the left.
 
Darryl1958 said:
And not from the left, which is using scientists to make all these doomsday predictions in the first place.
Click to expand...
Scientists are not so easily used. They may be misquoted. Sure. So ignore politicians too. Just go to the academic journals where results are published. Unless you think the vast left-wing conspiracy has taken over all of them too.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top