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

[Ender]

I simply don’t see why we shouldn’t transition to other sources of energy, regardless of whether or not climate change exists or not.

We could transition to renewable sources of energy, but the price of that energy would increase our fuel bills by 3-4 times over what we pay today. You can see this by looking at what has happened in Europe, especially Germany.

As far as using up our resources, while they are unarguably finite, as it turns out the supply keeps increasing as exploration and extraction methods continue to find more and more of the stuff. We have hundreds of years of supply in known reserves, which is more than enough to get us to the point where we can harness fusion technology which will give us a virtually unlimited supply of energy.

The point is, we could use other resources, but it would be enormously costly to do so and provide no real benefit. What’s the argument for doing that?

Ender

 

[sps49]

This is hilarious. You talk so much and say nothing at all.

I’m hardly outraged. I simply don’t see why we shouldn’t transition to other sources of energy, regardless of whether or not climate change exists or not.

Oh, I don’t know. It probably has more to do with you not liking what I have to say. Better you than me.

You never run out of straw, do you? First you ask for proof that we do more than just “consume” resources and energy, then you challenge the notion that climate change attribution and effects is still being vigorously debated, and now you bring up “transitioning to other sources of energy.” Have you ever studied the “transitions” that civilizations made to other energy sources? The driving factors has always been cost and availability. Never did we wake up one sunny morning and say, “I think we should use coal, or wood, or atomic energy because it’s a good idea.” Transition to wood or dung for all I care, but civilization uses what actually works for civilization.

 

[chero23]

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.

We should all pray for the Church. It is in grave danger in many countries today.

How so, bc it’s not something you agree on?

The earth is a loan from God, we have to protect it. Look a the big cities around the world with huge pollution problems. Do you think that just clears up by itself without any problems?

Sooner or later it all catches up.
The earth is like the body. It will tolerate things, but when it hits a certain point it will break down.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not at all. it is very easy to see the political divide in the discussion of this topic.
nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

That’s not what I called you on. I said it was speculation that the “leftist fingers were on the scales”, which I assume (although you have not made it clear) refers to the temperature adjustments made to historical land-based observations to bring them into better calibration. The article (opinion piece) you cited does not even address that question. So until you can establish it as accepted fact that some sort of deceptive adjustments are part of the essential temperature record to support global warming, it is still speculation. A strongly held belief on you part is still speculation.

Silliness.
I don’t read the tabloids., only the predictions by ‘scientists’ that have come and went.

The “doomsday predictions” you refer to are mostly tabloid material. Mainstream scientists who do research in this area do not make such predictions. So I don’t know where you saw these predictions, but I’ll bet it was not in a peer-reviewed professional journal article.

 

[Darryl1958]

…

The “doomsday predictions” you refer to are mostly tabloid material. Mainstream scientists who do research in this area do not make such predictions. So I don’t know where you saw these predictions, but I’ll bet it was not in a peer-reviewed professional journal article.

If only Al Gore had been relegated to the pages of the National Enquirer.

 

[Darryl1958]

dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!



Would you believe it was eight years ago today20150415 that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.

Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/#ixzz49hDhtmfZ

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“The Vatican said so” carries no more weight (on questions of science) than claims that “97% of climate scientists say so.”

I didn’t say that. I said that the weight of what the Vatican says about this matter is not in the science. The weight is in the fact that we have an obligation to care for our common home. And** if** there is global warming that we are causing, this is a matter of great concern and a moral obligation on our part. Therefore we must give serious consideration to questions like “are we causing global warming?”.

As for dismissing what most climate scientists say, on purely pragmatic and secular grounds, that is unreasonable. No need to appeal to the Vatican on that one. All it takes is a little humility to realize that we who are not putting in the time and effort and making it our life’s work to research this subject are not likely to be able to process what little data we have to any better effect than relying on what smarter people can tell us.

If one knows nothing about the issue it would be reasonable to simply accept what is said by those one has a reason to trust. The problem is that if one does know something of the matter this turns out to be poor advice.

And how many of us can truthfully say that we know enough about global climate change to challenge the findings of those we have reason to trust? Your advice is probably good advice for about 0.01% of the population.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If only Al Gore had been relegated to the pages of the National Enquirer.

You can totally ignore Al Gore and still come to the same basic conclusions.

 

[Darryl1958]

Doomsday was yesterday!!!

But it’s difficult. And so I think that as the science around climate change is more accepted, as people start realizing that even today you can put a price on the damage that climate change is doing – you go down to Miami, and when it’s flooding at high tide on a sunny day and fish are swimming through the middle of the streets, there’s a cost to that.

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/01/press-conference-president-obama

politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/04/barack-obama/do-fish-swim-streets-miami-high-tide-barack-obama-/

If only this was the stuff of National Enquirer.

 

[Darryl1958]

Good Morning America!

mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015

The images show Manhattan shrinking against the onslaught of the rising seas — in 2015. Last year. Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity. By the end of the clip I was expecting to see the esteemed doctors Peter Venkman, Egon Spengler, and Ray Stantz step forward to predict, “Rivers and Seas boiling!” “Forty years of darkness!” And of course the ultimate disasters: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together . . . Mass hysteria!”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

 

[Darryl1958]

You can totally ignore Al Gore and still come to the same basic conclusions.

You can totally ignore Al Gore period. The science is not settled. There is further room for “denial” , which is to say that science is never over

The National Enquirer is actually more accurate than what is being passed as neutral science by the highest echelons of our societies.

 

[peter26]

This is not a matter of faith and morals. The Church’s jurisdiction in this matter is therefore limited to its own internal administration. If the Vatican wants to make sure there are recycling bins in the Sistine Chapel and all priests drive hybrids, fine. Beyond that, this is a scientific and political matter. And no, the science is most certainly not settled.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The National Enquirer is actually more accurate than what is being passed as neutral science by the highest echelons of our societies.

Wow! I think that statement makes my point better than I could.

 

[Ender]

I said that the weight of what the Vatican says about this matter is not in the science. The weight is in the fact that we have an obligation to care for our common home. And** if** there is global warming that we are causing, this is a matter of great concern and a moral obligation on our part. Therefore we must give serious consideration to questions like “are we causing global warming?”.

“Are we causing problems” is of course the question. Whether we should take steps to mitigate the problems we cause is not an issue. No one debates that point. Saying that we have an obligation to care for our common home is no more relevant than saying we should love our neighbor, feed the hungry, or cure the sick. They’re all true, they’re just not relevant to the only question that matters here: are the claims about AGW true?

As for dismissing what most climate scientists say, on purely pragmatic and secular grounds, that is unreasonable.

Nor did I suggest we should do that. My comment about the 97% was not that this claim is actually true, but that it is used to stifle debate…much like saying “the Vatican says so” so we needn’t discuss the issue any longer. The 97% claim is simply an absurdity. The debate - among scientists anyway - still rages.

All it takes is a little humility to realize that we who are not putting in the time and effort and making it our life’s work to research this subject are not likely to be able to process what little data we have to any better effect than relying on what smarter people can tell us.

Would that be the smarter people telling us there is a problem or the smarter people telling us there isn’t? You may rely on whatever people you choose, but if you cannot provide a compelling argument to support the position they have taken, there is no reason for anyone else to take that position seriously.

And how many of us can truthfully say that we know enough about global climate change to challenge the findings of those we have reason to trust? Your advice is probably good advice for about 0.01% of the population.

Are you suggesting we should trust the IPCC and the CRU? They have demonstrated they are untrustworthy. Looking elsewhere is good advice for pretty much everyone.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is not a matter of faith and morals. The Church’s jurisdiction in this matter is therefore limited to its own internal administration. If the Vatican wants to make sure there are recycling bins in the Sistine Chapel and all priests drive hybrids, fine. Beyond that, this is a scientific and political matter. And no, the science is most certainly not settled.

Do you disagree with the issuing of Laudato Si, or do you merely disagree with some people’s biased interpretation of it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My comment about the 97% was not that this claim is actually true, but that it is used to stifle debate…much like saying “the Vatican says so” so we needn’t discuss the issue any longer. The 97% claim is simply an absurdity. The debate - among scientists anyway - still rages.

What do you estimate the percentage to be?

Would that be the smarter people telling us there is a problem or the smarter people telling us there isn’t?

Either one.

You may rely on whatever people you choose, but if you cannot provide a compelling argument to support the position they have taken, there is no reason for anyone else to take that position seriously.

I disagree. I personally cannot provide, from my own experience or knowledge, a compelling argument that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. But I trust those who have taken the data and draw that conclusion. And I think others would do well to take that position seriously, even though I cannot prove it to them myself.

Are you suggesting we should trust the IPCC and the CRU?

…and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
…and the American Chemical Society
…and the American Geophysical Union
…and the American Medical Association
…and the American Meteorological Society
…and the American Physical Society
…and the The Geological Society of America
…and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
…and the U.S. Global Change Research Program’
…and NASA

It isn’t just the two you mentioned.

They have demonstrated they are untrustworthy.

You can call it that if you want, but those are still unproven allegations.

Looking elsewhere is good advice for pretty much everyone.

If you look long enough you can always find someone to agree with whatever position you would like to see supported.

 

[chero23]

This is not a matter of faith and morals. The Church’s jurisdiction in this matter is therefore limited to its own internal administration. If the Vatican wants to make sure there are recycling bins in the Sistine Chapel and all priests drive hybrids, fine. Beyond that, this is a scientific and political matter. And no, the science is most certainly not settled.

How is protecting Mother Earth not about faith and morals? Didn’t God create her? Didn’t he leave us in charge of it?

It’s like kids, he’s lending them to the parents, to raise them, feed them, nurture them, same with Earth. The Church is doing right by that.

 

[KSU]

Do you disagree with the issuing of Laudato Si, or do you merely disagree with some people’s biased interpretation of it?

In my humble opinion, Laudato Si’ should not have been issued as an encyclical in its present form. It’s much too long for people in the pews to read, and too technical for them to understand.

Whatever group drafted it for the Holy Father chose a style far too susceptible to misinterpretation. Francis neither intended to nor did issue a scientific treatise on climate change, but that apparently is how you and many others see it. If you haven’t studied it, it’s difficult to blame you for such interpretation-- but not for your inexplicable support of certain politically corrupted “science”.

Burried away in Laudato Si’ is extrodinary beauty and common sense that most Catholics will never see. For that reason it should be boiled down to a ten-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as required reading for every Catholic. Any attempted involvement by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences or Vatican Press Office should incur either excommunication or reading every result from an internet search of “Climate scientist charged with fraud.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In my humble opinion, Laudato Si’ should not have been issued as an encyclical in its present form. It’s much too long for people in the pews to read, and too technical for them to understand.

Whatever group drafted it for the Holy Father chose a style far too susceptible to misinterpretation. Francis neither intended to nor did issue a scientific treatise on climate change, but that apparently is how you and many others see it. If you haven’t studied it, it’s difficult to blame you for such interpretation-- but not for your inexplicable support of certain politically corrupted “science”.

Burried away in Laudato Si’ is extrodinary beauty and common sense that most Catholics will never see. For that reason it should be boiled down to a ten-page document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as required reading for every Catholic. Any attempted involvement by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences or Vatican Press Office should incur either excommunication or reading every result from an internet search of “Climate scientist charged with fraud.”

Quite a humble opinion indeed!

 

[KSU]

Quite a humble opinion indeed!

Thank you, my friend, but too much humility in defense of the Faith is annoying to me.