Did the Pope just call skeptics on man-made climate change stupid?


#22

Oh, man. The so-called evidence in favor of your assertion has been proven fake on a number of occasions. Plus, you use a logical fallacy to dismiss the point about scientists who disagree as being “doctored.” That is not the case.

But, you are free to apply faith to your views.


#23

No, it hasn’t been proven fake. The data is there, CO2’s properties are long known, and inserting more energy into a system that cannot readily get rid of that energy inevitably leads to build up of surplus energy; in this case heat. If you have some heat sink that removes the extra thermal energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere, then provide it, otherwise your claim is nothing more than openly defying thermodynamics.


#24

:rofl: Yes, there have been some “doctored” reports, about the Arctic ice caps, if I remember correctly. The scientist involved were caught. It was international news. Maybe you missed it.

In any event, you are free to have faith in this if you wish.


#25

Perhaps better than your recall would be citations.


#26

You can google as well as I can.


#27

If it’s that easy, why don’t you provide the link?


#28

Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time gives some good points:


#29

Because I am not going to argue with you. Faith is not subject to argumentation.


#30

Which does nothing to back up your claim of malfeasance. And Sowell is an economist, not a climatologist, or even a physicist, so he’s speaking so far out of his area of expertise that I see no reason to even pretend he is an expert.


#31

Does not dismiss his point, my friend.

Why are you so frightened by 1000s of scientist disagreeing with human caused climate change. I will not argue with people who will not acknowledge the other side. Good bye. Discussion ended.


#32

Here is a congressional hearing that objectively details the data, which supports your well made points.


#33

I’m not frightened, I reject the list completely. It’s bunk and I can’t believe anyone still imagines that it was anything other than propaganda, seeing as many of the names aren’t even scientists at all. At least stick to Spencer and Curry, who actually are atmospheric experts. Oh that’s right, Spencer hasn’t done active research in nearly a quarter of a century, and Curry’s cutting critiques of AGW never seem to show up in any journals.

So yes, I reject an economist’s analysis of atmospheric and physics research, much as I would reject a physiotherapists declarations on neural studies.


#34

Pretty sure this is where the word stupid comes from.

In the interview with Holy Father Pope Francis, on that plane.

See it there in the Psalm ?


#35

I’m curious as to why you don’t cite the primary literature and journals which must surely debunk AGW. It’s all Youtube videos.


#36

It is interesting that you will not even look at the data this scientist presents. This is a Congressional hearing, not just a youtube video. Enough said.


#37

I’m interested in data, not youtube videos. If you have some citations to primary literature and peer reviewed articles, provide it. Youtube and Google are not journals, and they are not the place where scientific debates happen. After all, I can deliver you Youtube videos on how HIV doesn’t cause AIDS or people who have claimed to debunk General Relativity. You really just want to throw me a bunch of online bafflegab, because that’s you’ve been sold on. Well, my standards are considerably higher

So let’s start with your citations to peer reviewed and primary literature that debunk CO2’s UV absorption properties and thermodynamics.


#38

Here is a great example of obfuscation and an attempt to shut down debate. Great example.


#39

So I can assume you can provide no actual citations from peer review and primary literature.


#40

I couldn’t care less if he did or not. I call people “stupid” from time to time when I get frustrated about them disagreeing with me. The Pope is a human being and probably feels a bit frustrated from time to time. He is also allowed to have opinions on things.

I do not totally agree with his expressed views on climate change, but climate science is not an official Church teaching, so both of our opinions on it are irrelevant.


#41

Niceathiest, if you really are an athiest I hope you can forgive the ignorance that some of my fellow religious show. To be sure it is of no religious requirement for people of faith to have correct scientific views so I try not to judge too harshly. However, it is a discouragement that many deniers of scientifically proven phenomenon are of the faith. My personal explanation is that perhaps sometimes when you live by faith you get used to approaching problems in a way similar to how you practice your faith. Meaning they are looking for something to believe in, not to acertain the scientific truth.

Again, such is not heretical to the faith yes, but it can be dangerous to others, such as the many deaths caused by anti-vacciners. I do not know how to bridge this gap between faith and science NiceAthiest, but I am tempted to say a refusal to listen to sounds logic/science is a possible sign of a illformed faith?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.