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

[Darryl1958]

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

The problem is not with science. The problem is with the politicization of science by the left.

You made the point that the doomsday was the stuff of tabloids, very well indeed.

The source of the tabloid gossip goes all the way to the White House, and former VP’s on the left.

So there is the point you are making, all in black and white. The tabloid is a leftist one, and it is what is driving the science.

Follow the money trail. Follow the gossip to the source.
It is not a conspiracy theory. It is all right there out in the open, tabloid style.
Whitehousegov.org

 

[Darryl1958]

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

Too much humility is just more pretense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is not with science. The problem is with the politicization of science by the left.

True. And by the right. Both sides are guilty.

The tabloid is a leftist one, and it is what is driving the science.

No, it is driving the misreporting of science. The science itself, as practiced by actual scientists, is little affected. And don’t bring up “follow the money” because that trail leads both ways too. And believing the science is easily corrupted by funding sources is like believing you could pay a mathematician to publish a faulty proof of Femat’s Last Theorem.

 

[peter26]

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.

The question is not whether we need to protect the environment. The question is, from what? To what extremes do we need to go? Climate change is bad science in my view. But more to the point, its highly contentious science. Care for the planet is a given, but not everyone believes that means reducing carbon emissions. Bottom line though is that this is well outside of the church’s jurisdiction. It is not the job of the church to compile a political platform.

 

[Ender]

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.

It is not a question of whether we are capable of doing the science involved; what matters is whether we can understand the explanations and the predictions. For example, we have had no statistically significant atmospheric warming for over 18 years: what accounts for that? The AGW side has asserted that warming is continuing, but instead of the atmosphere getting hotter, it is the seas that are warming. To justify that claim they have produced graphs showing how the heat content of the oceans has been increasing.

Clearly the layman is not capable of making those calculations himself, so does that mean there is no alternative between rejecting the assertion out of hand or accepting it on faith? Well, no. There is other information available. A little bit of investigation reveals that prior to about 2003 there was no systematic collection of marine data. That is, there is simply insufficient information available to justify the creation of plots purporting to show the heat content of the oceans going back to the early 60’s.

You don’t need to be a climate scientist to be able to have an informed judgment on this topic. There is a tremendous amount of information available that is easily understood by anyone willing to look for it.

…and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (et al)

Again, what is implied here is a good bit more than is warranted. The boards of these organizations may well have come out in support of the idea of AGW, but that in no way suggests that even a majority of their members agree with that editorial position. I suspect that the percentage of scientists who believe man is clearly responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last century is on the order of 10%. Most of them recognize the uncertainties involved, as well as the inadvisability of asserting something that cannot be clearly demonstrated.

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

Say what you will about the other organizations, but insisting that the IPCC and CRU have not demonstrated deceit and dishonesty requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ender

 

[sps49]

It is not a question of whether we are capable of doing the science involved; what matters is whether we can understand the explanations and the predictions. For example, we have had no statistically significant atmospheric warming for over 18 years: what accounts for that? The AGW side has asserted that warming is continuing, but instead of the atmosphere getting hotter, it is the seas that are warming. To justify that claim they have produced graphs showing how the heat content of the oceans has been increasing.

Clearly the layman is not capable of making those calculations himself, so does that mean there is no alternative between rejecting the assertion out of hand or accepting it on faith? Well, no. There is other information available. A little bit of investigation reveals that prior to about 2003 there was no systematic collection of marine data. That is, there is simply insufficient information available to justify the creation of plots purporting to show the heat content of the oceans going back to the early 60’s.

You don’t need to be a climate scientist to be able to have an informed judgment on this topic. There is a tremendous amount of information available that is easily understood by anyone willing to look for it.
Again, what is implied here is a good bit more than is warranted. The boards of these organizations may well have come out in support of the idea of AGW, but that in no way suggests that even a majority of their members agree with that editorial position. I suspect that the percentage of scientists who believe man is clearly responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last century is on the order of 10%. Most of them recognize the uncertainties involved, as well as the inadvisability of asserting something that cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Say what you will about the other organizations, but insisting that the IPCC and CRU have not demonstrated deceit and dishonesty requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ender

 

[eamonnroma]

The Vatican’s representative at UN offices in Geneva has proclaimed that there is “no further room for denial” that "human-induced climate change is a scientific reality."Speaking to a …

More…

I don’t understand what the fuss is about. I just use the evidence of my eyes and memory. I am 60 years old, and the climate has definitely changed in my life time. It is much hotter and wetter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t understand what the fuss is about. I just use the evidence of my eyes and memory. I am 60 years old, and the climate has definitely changed in my life time. It is much hotter and wetter.

I’m older than that, and where I live it hasn’t changed at all. And the local and nearby flora and fauna amply demonstrate “no change”.

But say, if you could send us some of that 'wetter" climate change, we could use it almost every August and September; sometimes in July too.

 

[mary_bobo]

The question is not whether we need to protect the environment. The question is, from what? To what extremes do we need to go? Climate change is bad science in my view. But more to the point, its highly contentious science. Care for the planet is a given, but not everyone believes that means reducing carbon emissions. Bottom line though is that this is well outside of the church’s jurisdiction. It is not the job of the church to compile a political platform.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is not a question of whether we are capable of doing the science involved; what matters is whether we can understand the explanations and the predictions.

It is the same thing. If a health researcher wanted to convince you of the causal relationship between smoking and heart disease, and if you did not have the training in statistics to know how to calculate the p-value from raw data, you would just have to take his word for it. Similarly, if you don’t understand how global surface measurements need to be calibrated to compensate for local effects and more accurately reflect the temperature over a wider area, you might likely look at those measurements with great suspicion, and call it a “finger on the scale”. I think it disrespects these scientists and their training to say that a layman can easily pass judgment on their methods. Until one is truly immersed in a field of study, it is arrogant to suppose that those who have so spent their lives have really not achieved anything for all their efforts.

For example, we have had no statistically significant atmospheric warming for over 18 years.

How many climate statisticians agree with that quite technical statement? What is “statistically significant” to a layman?

what accounts for that? The AGW side has asserted that warming is continuing, but instead of the atmosphere getting hotter, it is the seas that are warming. To justify that claim they have produced graphs showing how the heat content of the oceans has been increasing.

Clearly the layman is not capable of making those calculations himself, so does that mean there is no alternative between rejecting the assertion out of hand or accepting it on faith? Well, no. There is other information available. A little bit of investigation reveals that prior to about 2003 there was no systematic collection of marine data. That is, there is simply insufficient information available to justify the creation of plots purporting to show the heat content of the oceans going back to the early 60’s.

You are making a technical judgment on the significance of marine data taken. I don’t think you can be very quantitative in that judgement without exceptional study.

You don’t need to be a climate scientist to be able to have an informed judgment on this topic.

You do.

There is a tremendous amount of information available that is easily understood by anyone willing to look for it.

If by “look for it” you mean “google for statements that agree with what you want to hear”, then sure. I don’t call that useful information.

Again, what is implied here is a good bit more than is warranted. The boards of these organizations may well have come out in support of the idea of AGW, but that in no way suggests that even a majority of their members agree with that editorial position.

It strains credulity to suppose that so many of these organizations are able to come out with positions that hardly any of their members agree with.

I suspect that the percentage of scientists who believe man is clearly responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last century is on the order of 10%.

OK, how would you go about turning that suspicion into something more factual? And by the way, that is quite an extreme form of “agreeing with global warming”. Even if one believed that man is responsible for a third of the warming seen in just the past 50 years, that position would be challenged by many posters here. It seems your main point is that climate is not changing much at all (for 18 years anyway), never mind who might be causing it. So I think there is a bit of a strawman argument going on here. People (not necessarily you) find quotes by Al Gore and have great fun pointing out his errors - all the while ignoring the calm steady voices of serious scientists who do not make doomsday predictions, but do point to results that are roundly ignored. Even poor Pope Francis gets criticized for his very moderate encyclical.

Most of them recognize the uncertainties involved, as well as the inadvisability of asserting something that cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Say what you will about the other organizations, but insisting that the IPCC and CRU have not demonstrated deceit and dishonesty requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

…a suspension of disbelief shared by all those organizations I cited? Why do then continue to cite IPCC if the IPCC has no credibility?

 

[KSU]

Well, LeafByNiggle, knowledgeable Americans have had enough of financially and ideologically corrupt politicians and scientists here and around the world who have set their sights on a tax-the-Americans scam.

Probably the worst aspect of this global cabal’s effort is the attempt to criminalize the words I and other GW skeptics have posted on this website. Here are just two links: washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html

Pope Francis in his encyclical disappointed the cabal with a one-two-punch: he stated that settling scientific questions was not Church business, and he said that money would not solve the problem. Goodbye to the theological cover of the tax ripoff.

And now comes the cabal’s worst nightmare; D. J. Trump-- the very real threat of a political goodbye to the multi-billion dollar, American tax ripoff. Trump said climate change is a hoax, and that he would renegotiate the Paris agreements, ** at a minimum** .

 

[Darryl1958]

True. And by the right. Both sides are guilty.

No, it is driving the misreporting of science. The science itself, as practiced by actual scientists, is little affected. And don’t bring up “follow the money” because that trail leads both ways too. And believing the science is easily corrupted by funding sources is like believing you could pay a mathematician to publish a faulty proof of Femat’s Last Theorem.

Well there you go then

What we are dealing with when we follow that trail is no longer science, but politics.

Science does not come up with terms such as there is “no further room for denial on climate change”.

That is not science. That is politicking. Science requires critical examination of all data. Science is never settled, but always aims for better models to estimate the shape of material reality.
And the complexity of the climate means that variables approach infinity when it comes to accounting for all factors that may have an effect on future climate conditions.

What motivates the left is using the environment as a cudgel to pound away at the viability of capitalism. What motivates the right is to preserve the economy against this kind of attack.

Science itself is neither left nor right. Science does not label one side deniers and the other saviors. Science does not come up with doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario.

That is not scientists acting as scientists that do that. That is not theologians acting as theologians. That is leftists abusing science for their own aims.
From Gore to the White House to the Vatican, the argument is not against science or Catholicism, but against the leftist abuse of climate science and theology to promote a socialist agenda.

For as you say, following the money trail leads not to science, but to both left and right guilty of abusing science for their own agendas.

Common sense understands that it is a good thing to reduce, reuse and recycle, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Common experience tells us that wealth generated by capitalism gives better deals to deal with environmental degradation than unsustainable socialist models

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, LeafByNiggle, knowledgeable Americans have had enough of financially and ideologically corrupt politicians and scientists here and around the world who have set their sights on a tax-the-Americans scam.

Probably the worst aspect of this global cabal’s effort is the attempt to criminalize the words I and other GW skeptics have posted on this website. Here are just two links: washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html

Pope Francis in his encyclical disappointed the cabal with a one-two-punch: he stated that settling scientific questions was not Church business, and he said that money would not solve the problem. Goodbye to the theological cover of the tax ripoff.

And now comes the cabal’s worst nightmare; D. J. Trump-- the very real threat of a political goodbye to the multi-billion dollar, American tax ripoff. Trump said climate change is a hoax, and that he would renegotiate the Paris agreements, ** at a minimum** .

The specific plans to mitigate global warming are a separate issue from the one to which I refer. And that is the scientific facts of climate change. Scientists do not generally offer tax plans. That’s for politicians. And if you want to argue tax plans and who wins and who looses, go find someone else to argue with, because I have no position on those questions.

Global warming is not a hoax. If so, it would be the biggest, most well-coordinated hoax in history, involving the cooperation of an unbelievable number of independent scientific agencies. This ranks right up there with Elvis lives and the moon landings were faked. Common sense just doesn’t support the hoax idea.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Science does not come up with terms such as there is “no further room for denial on climate change”.

Reasonable people come up with terms like that.

That is not science. That is politicking.

The Vatican is politicking?

Science requires critical examination of all data.

Which has been done and which continues to go on. No one is suggesting that we stop collecting data or doing research. But the data collected so far indicates global warming.

And the complexity of the climate means that variables approach infinity when it comes to accounting for all factors that may have an effect on future climate conditions.

Of course. We don’t need to be able to predict the temperature everywhere on earth for all time to know that there is a problem and to make a good estimate of the nature of that problem.

What motivates the left is using the environment as a cudgel to pound away at the viability of capitalism.

That is irrelevant. The “left” is not the sole promoter of climate change.

What motivates the right is to preserve the economy against this kind of attack.

I could make a similarly derogatory observation about what motivates the right, but it would be equally irrelevant.

Science itself is neither left nor right.

Absolutely true.

Science does not label one side deniers and the other saviors.

Irrelevant.

Science does not come up with doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario.

Science does make predictions that can be unpleasant. I would not call them doomsday scenarios.

Common sense understands that it is a good thing to reduce, reuse and recycle, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Common experience tells us that wealth generated by capitalism gives better deals to deal with environmental degradation than unsustainable socialist models

No argument there. I am not arguing for this or that mitigation measure. I am only arguing for the acceptance of the scientific facts.

 

[KSU]

The specific plans to mitigate global warming are a separate issue from the one to which I refer. And that is the scientific facts of climate change. Scientists do not generally offer tax plans. That’s for politicians. And if you want to argue tax plans and who wins and who looses, go find someone else to argue with, because I have no position on those questions.
** Nice try, my friend. AGW scientists, as I am absolutely sure you know, are salivating at the thought of the perennial multi-billion dollar tax schemes you pretend to disdain. Believe this: If the tax schemes disappeared, so would the idea of AGW pushed by some scientists. In my career of protecting the marine environment, I once held the naive belief that, at bottom, honesty and decency ruled all people. That was quashed in the seventies by dealing with U.N. proposals for soaking American taxpayers and businesses under the cloak of fairness. Nothing changes; as Darryl says, follow the money. **

Global warming is not a hoax. If so, it would be the biggest, most well-coordinated hoax in history…
Well, you’re close. The oldest and greatest hoax was that we can be like God if we only used our common sense. That precipitated the hoaxes of Socialism and the belief that God commands us to kill all non-believers. The AGW hoax comes in fourth..

My reply in bold.

 

[Ender]

I think it disrespects these scientists and their training to say that a layman can easily pass judgment on their methods.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I can’t comment on the validity of tree core samples as a method of computing temperatures, but I can comment on the validity of the study that purports to find 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW. Sometimes technical expertise simply is not required; it is not an all or nothing question.

You are making a technical judgment on the significance of marine data taken. I don’t think you can be very quantitative in that judgement without exceptional study.

This is one of those questions where technical expertise is not required. There was no systematic method of collecting ocean temperature prior to the distribution of the Argo buoys around 2003. Given that fact, does it really require a degree in some climate science to assert that there is insufficient data to claim we knew what the oceans heat content was back in the early 60’s?

If by “look for it” you mean “google for statements that agree with what you want to hear”, then sure. I don’t call that useful information.

If you don’t think it’s useful then don’t do it. It’s easy enough to read what the scientists themselves are saying; surely you are aware of that.

And by the way, that is quite an extreme form of “agreeing with global warming”.

I’m glad you commented on this. You may find it this an extreme statement of what climate scientists believe (man is clearly responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last century), but that is very much what most people assume the 97% number is implying. Here is NASA: “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities”. And SkepticalScience: “Global warming is happening and we are the cause.” And The Guardian: “It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming.”

The real difference between my comment and the sources I cited is that I was explicit about what was being claimed, and they were implying it. That is, they want people to believe that what I said is true even though they know it isn’t. How would you phrase the claim to make it clear what was being asserted?

It seems your main point is that climate is not changing much at all (for 18 years anyway), never mind who might be causing it.

That is certainly one point, and it is what the data show…and it raises another question. There appears to be disagreement on whether or not there has been an 18 year hiatus in warming. How can that be? If world governments have been spending billions of dollars over several decades to collect and analyze data, how can we not know what’s been going on for the last decade? And if we can’t even tell what the temperature is now given all the technology available to us, how can anyone claim to be able to recreate temperatures from the past?

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Believe this: If the tax schemes disappeared, so would the idea of AGW pushed by some scientists…

Some? Most? All? Believe this: Most scientists who conclude AGW would do so regardless of the possibility of tax schemes to mitigate it. To believe otherwise is to indulge in groundless speculation.

The AGW hoax comes in fourth.

More groundless speculation. It is too extraordinary to be believed without extraordinary proof of complicity on the part of a huge number of people. Hoaxes just don’t work like that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I can’t comment on the validity of tree core samples as a method of computing temperatures, but I can comment on the validity of the study that purports to find 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW.

You have commented on that study before and I found your conclusions unwarranted. That is, if you are talking about the study itself, and not the subsequent less-accurate retelling of the study.

Sometimes technical expertise simply is not required;

But the questions to which you are applying that principle happen to be one of those times where technical expertise is required.

There was no systematic method of collecting ocean temperature prior to the distribution of the Argo buoys around 2003. Given that fact, does it really require a degree in some climate science to assert that there is insufficient data to claim we knew what the oceans heat content was back in the early 60’s?

It takes more that just the facts you have presented. It takes enough knowledge of all alternative methods of estimating historical ocean heat content.

I’m glad you commented on this. You may find it this an extreme statement of what climate scientists believe (man is clearly responsible for most of the warming experienced in the last century), but that is very much what most people assume the 97% number is implying. Here is NASA: “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities”. And SkepticalScience: “Global warming is happening and we are the cause.” And The Guardian: “It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming.”

Well, then we are in agreement that scientific results can be misrepresented. That is no reason to throw out the results themselves.

That is certainly one point, and it is what the data show…and it raises another question. There appears to be disagreement on whether or not there has been an 18 year hiatus in warming. How can that be? If world governments have been spending billions of dollars over several decades to collect and analyze data, how can we not know what’s been going on for the last decade? And if we can’t even tell what the temperature is now given all the technology available to us, how can anyone claim to be able to recreate temperatures from the past?

Ender

I greatly distrust any argument that is based on my or your inability to think of an alternative.

 

[KSU]

QUOTE Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process.

Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions. Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed scientists — Nobel laureates among them.

Responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, who egged on the investigation by describing a widespread “climate denier apparatus,” Ms. Lynch admitted that she has referred the matter to the FBI “to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” That’s certainly one way to try to silence the skeptics — the First Amendment be damned. END QUOTE washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/todd-young-obama-lawyers-would-deny-free-speech-to/

---

QUOTE President Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to “use the instruments of power” to target his political opponents, so Loretta Lynch’s acknowledgment the Justice Department is exploring legal action against global warming skeptics isn’t surprising, Charles Krauthammer said tonight. “We know that in principle it will do it and has done it,” Krauthammer said on Thursday’s Special Report. Krauthammer also expounded on the strategy behind using the term “climate denier”: The left already has won this argument just on the basis of syntax. Denial is used with the Holocaust. Holocaust is a historical fact; if you deny it, yes, you are doing something extraordinary. Climate change is a projection into the future. The idea that it is the equivalent of, say, consideration of the Holocaust is absurd, but the left has captured the language. So, you, first of all, call them deniers, the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers and then you look to see if the Justice Department could find a way to go after them? As if the objective is to find them guilty of something, i.e., shut them up and to find a statute of some kind like RICO, under which you could do it. If it does happen, Krauthammer said, ”It would be an impeachable action.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/432641/krauthammer-impeachable-if-obama-actually-prosecutes-climate-skeptics END QUOTE

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Those aren’t facts, especially when the methodology is so disputed.