Another possible explanation is that some people have good educations and science backgrounds and understand the limitations of scientific studies and that there is some science on both sides of an issue, and also understand how those out for some type of personal advantage put spin on various topics in our biased media.
I suppose there are people of faith like you describe. I am not one of them. There are also people of science who form an orthodoxy where anyone who disagrees is shut down. This is seen in any number of areas.
The Paris art academy said that Matisse, Degas and Van Gogh were not real artists and were dangerous.
The medical academy refused to admit that germs existed despite the scientific and experimental evidence to prove that germs did in fact exist. As a result, up to as late as 1880s, doctors prided themselves on how dirty their surgical aprons were. The dirtier the more prestige.
There is a great danger with “the academy”, that is, the idea that there is an orthodoxy in science that cannot be discussed or debated. In fact, that attitude is decidedly unscientific.
The fact is that there are many qualified scientists who disagree with the notion of human caused global warming. There is a large amount of data to prove this.
A summary of this is found in the link I gave to the Congressional Hearings with Dr, Easterbrook (post 32) who presents the hard original data, and the obfuscating attempts to shut down debate with logical fallacies (appeal to authority fallacy) seen in the link I posted #38.
look at the actions of the parties to the paris executive order. it is hogwash. they have a globalization plan and could care less about the environment. their actions speak louder than their words.
Ben Stein produced a movie about this subject of “the academy” shutting down debate:
I’m not skeptical of climate change.
I am skeptical of folks who tell me , yet again , that I should tighten my belt and make sacrifices, for this reason, that reason , and the other reason .
Meanwhile, more often than not, those same folks demanding yet another sacrifice from me, are buying McMansions , driving SUV’s , flying around in jets when they have secretaries , or even secretarial pools, and could then just as well send a letter * Cough * * glances the Popes way regarding the jets and secretaries * sending their toddlers to kindergartens with $10,000 per year tuition , wearing the equivalent of my monthly income, or more, in one outfit , etc, etc, etc.
Well, we already know the real reason why people reject climate change, but thanks for reminding us.
Apparently I did not remind.
You left out ;
Now, you are welcome .
What jet does the Pope have?
Do you mean the Shepherd One?
Did you know he flies Alitalia ,when possible,unless he needs a different airline somewhere?
" Any flight he takes turns into " Shepherd One" . It was the name given by the Control tower in US to his flights.
I love this anecdote…
I said he flew around in jets, . I wouldn’t know about any jet he does, or doesn’t , have.
In any case,I am sharing this anecdote . Perhaps you didn t know about his " Shepherd One" .
And it’s chartered with the journalists ,I believe.
You bet he would walk,take a bus or the subway if he could… And go eat pizza.
I see . Thanks for the anecdote. I just eat up little details like that, and the more trivial and obscure , the better. I have spent I don’t know how many hours just examining Papal Coats of Arms and the meanings of the heraldry in them , for example.
Me too,but it happens whenever I start investigating any interesting topic…I read and read until I forget where I started…
Glad you liked the anecdote. If I find more,I ll share with you. Nice to meet you!
Here is the full text of the Holy Father’s in-flight press conference of Sept. 11, from The Catholic World Report (if I was able to correctly insert the link and quotations, that is). It looks as though the Pope made the “stupid” reference from the Psalms not about climate change but in connection with a question about North Korea and arms proliferation. It is pretty clear though, where the Holy Father stands on climate change, as if Laudato Si (which is more than just his personal opinion) did not make that clear enough.
Pinardi: The question is this: while we were flying, we passed close to Hurricane Irma, which after causing … deaths and massive damage in the Caribbean islands and Cuba, it’s feared that broad areas of Florida could end up underwater, and 6 million people have had to leave their homes. After Hurricane Harvey, there have been almost simultaneously three hurricanes in the area. Scientists say that the warming of the oceans is a factor that contributes to making the storms and seasonal hurricanes more intense. Is there a moral responsibility for political leaders who reject collaborating with the other nations to control the emission of greenhouse gas? Why do they deny that climate change is also be the work of man?
Pope Francis: Thanks. For the last part, to not forget, whoever denies this should go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly. The scientists are precise. The other day, when the news of that Russian boat came out, I believe, that went from Norway to Japan or Taipei by way of the North Pole without an icebreaker and the photographs showed pieces of ice. To the North Pole, you could go. It’s very, very clear. When that news came from a university, I don’t remember from where, another came out that said, ‘We only have three years to turn back, otherwise the consequences will be terrible.’ I don’t know if three years is true or not, but if we don’t turn back we’re going down, that’s true. Climate change, you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a responsibility, all… everyone… a little one, a big one, a moral responsibility, and to accept from the opinion or make decisions, and we have to take it seriously. I think it’s something that’s not to joke around with. It’s very serious. And you ask me: what is the moral responsibility. Everyone has his. Politicians have their own. Everyone has their own according to the response he gives.
I would say: everyone has their own moral responsibility, first. Second, if one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then let them decide, and history will judge their decisions. Thanks.
Romeo: … much damage in Rome. We are all concerned by this situation. Why is there a delay in taking awareness, especially by governments, that nevertheless appear to be solicitous perhaps in other areas, for example, in arms trade? We are seeing the crisis in Korea, also about this I would like to have your opinion.
Pope Francis: Why? A phrase comes to me from the Old Testament, I believe from the Psalm: Man is stupid. He is stubborn one who does not see, the only animal of creation that puts his leg in the same hole is man… the horse, no, they don’t do it… There is arrogance, the sufficiency of “it’s not like that,” and then there is the “pocket” God, not only about creation, so many decisions, so many contradictions (…) depend on money. Today, in Cartagena, I started in a part, let’s call it poor, of Cartagena. The other part, the touristic side, luxury, luxury without moral measure… but those who go there don’t realize this, or the socio-political analysts don’t realize… ‘man is stupid,’ the Bible said. It’s like that: when you don’t want to see, you don’t see. You just look in another direction. And of North Korea, I’ll tell the truth, I don’t understand. Truly, I don’t understand that world of geopolitics. It’s very tough for me. But I believe that what I see, there is a struggle of interests that don’t escape me, I truly can’t explain… but the other important thing: we don’t take awareness. Think to Cartagena today. Is this unjust. Can we take awareness? This is what comes to me. Thanks.
christofirst, thanks for showing the full context. Those who cut and paste to make Pope Francis look bad should be ashamed of themselves.
Maybe misunderstood his statement?
If man-made climate change is real, the Holy Father would be absolutely spot on with his comments addressing the governments who seem to do very little to deal with such a fact. And the Pope certainly believes that there is a strong consensus amongst scientists regarding man-made climate change, and as such, he’s perfectly prudent to abide by such a scientific consensus.
The fact that individuals may disagree with him in their interpretation of that consensus is nothing to make hay over. And it’s absolutely not something to yet again bash the Holy Father with.
People seem to treat the Pope as if he were an elected official: we can critique him and criticize him and even insult him publicly all we want. Well, that’s not the case. We are free to disagree with him over certain issues, but he is not an enemy or a foe, he is our father, and he needs to be treated with true respect and sincere love.
Moreover, we need to keep in mind how such a treatment of his views is impacting those whom we are subtly encouraging to be scandalized by the Pope, when there is absolutely no reason to be. We need to stop being offended by everything and we need to stop being “injustice collectors” with regard to this Papacy.
This issue is much more politicized (the percentage on the left and the right are much further apart) in the US than elsewhere in the world. See a 2015 Pew Research Center survey: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/ (You can also click on the first page to see the full report.)
A Yale survey http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-american-mind-may-2017/2/ found that 70% in the US think climate change is real, but only 58% think it is caused by humans. These numbers are much lower than in other developed countries.
If you read the comments of climate change deniers in the thread above, you can clearly see they don’t understand the issue. For example, some ridicule climate change because of course there are hurricanes in hurricane season. Yes. But Irma was the most powerful hurricane ever recorded. As scientists keep pointing out (but I guess some people don’t pay attention), it’s not the number of hurricanes, it’s the severity of them that’s changing. Why? Because the oceans are warmer, leading to more powerful hurricanes.
Others talk about what a small percentage of CO2 is caused by humans, so who cares, right?
Think of the earth as a scale, with equal weights on each side. Say, 100 pounds on each side. It’s balanced. What happens when you add a tiny fraction to one side, say 1 once? One side of the scale moves down. Was the one ounce enough to shift the balance? Of course.
Actually, according to the surveys, Catholics are more apt to believe in climate change than other people. No, the pope isn’t infallible when he gives his opinion on this, but he’s right.
Why would you make the existence of " ‘doctored’ reports, about the Arctic ice caps" a matter of your faith?
Why not just supply the reference?
That would be very nice if it were true. In fact many people are denying climate change, or else redefining the term to mean the ordinary natural variations in weather not caused by human activity.
I have no problem with people who disagree on the solution to man-made global warming, but who accept that it is happening.
How do you explain the Medieval Warming period and the ensuing mini-ice age?