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


#104

If that is the case, how many laymen understand the evidence for General Relativity? I would venture hardly anybody. So what is there for most people except what most scientists say?


#105

This seems to be a common defense among those who wish to deny the evidence for climate change and still think of themselves as faithful Catholics. I think it’s dangerously misguided. It’s clear that Pope Francis made caring for the climate an issue of faith and morals, so there is no wiggling out of it. Laudato Si is an encyclical that is every bit as authoritative as Humanae vitae. There is no scientific consensus on the moment when a fertilized egg becomes a human person. However, JPII wrote that we must treat it as if it were a person out of an abundance of caution. The same can be said about climate change. We must alter our behavior and reduce carbon emissions out of an abundance of caution. This has gone beyond any scientific debate. This is a ProLife issue that we are asked to embrace for moral reasons. If we don’t, millions will die and the deniers will be held accountable for their suffering.


#106

I am not a firm believer with humans having a huge effect on the weather. Weather patterns such as hurricanes have been recorded in some form or other to show that hurricanes have been occurring through out history and with low human populations as can be read in wiki:

Why do I feel this way, because the earth has had significant temperature swings since it’s birth. This was before man polluting technology.

Look at the Eocene period, the earth was tropical including both the north and south poles. Lot’s of water vapor/CO2 and methane created a greenhouse effect thus preventing solar radiation (short wave) from heating the earth. Thus the cooling trend occurs. Ice caps and ice sheets developed over east Antarctica. About 7 million years ago Greenland was completely covered by ice. 5 million years ago ice covers much of Scandinavia and the Northern Pacific Region. 3-5 million years ago, the earth started to warm up, where the ocean’s Greenland and Antarctica started to warm.

18 thousand years ago, another cooling time for the earth where ice covered North America (mid latitude) and Europe. There other causes such as tectonic plate movements and water temperatures alter the earth temperatures.

When it comes to hurricanes in the pre-historic times, I read that those hurricanes reached over 1000 km per hour sustained winds. Would not of want to exist in those times.

So to me, the climate ebbs and flows. Much like the tide on a rocky beach. And will continue on well into the future as it did in the past.


#107

Great post. You got it right.


#108

Oh my defiance of the laws of thermodynamics!
Please elaborate, I am always very interested in claims that people violating the laws of thermodynamics.


#109

Um no. It was a big deal.

I remember reading that the Secretary General of the UN even made a speech saying we’d gone too far. That cooling would be a constant from then on in.


#110

This seems to be a common defense among those who wish to deny the evidence for climate change

It’s not a defense friend. It is a fact. The Pope’s infallibility extends to only faith and morals precisely to safeguard the faithful from following errant teachings in fields not in the Pope’s premit of authority. He is not a scientist. Please recall at one point in history the Pope agreed with the actual scientific consensus on Geocentrism. When Galileo disagreed with the theory he was not persecuted for proposing a scientific theory but for teachnig it as truth. Applying this principle to AGW it is clear who is teaching it as truth and not a hypothesis…the AGW lobby is. The Pope would do well to keep his distance from them. He may innocently believe that what the loudest voices are saying is an actual undisputed fact. I think nothing can be further from the truth.

and still think of themselves as faithful Catholics.

Sounds like a strawman to me. Do you think that George Le Maitre was unfaithful for disagreeing with the Pope of his day on scientific matters? How about Gregor Mendel disagreeing with a bishop or priest on genetic matters?
Disagreeing on science with the Pope doesn’t make one unfaithful. You are incorrect.

I think it’s dangerously misguided.

There is no good evidence to suggest it is. The only thing dangerous I think is forcing poor countries to pay taxes for using fossil fuels simply to stay warm and pull themselves out of poverty. The only thing dangerous is labeling plant food (CO2) poisonous without any evidence to substantiate the claim and making a circus of the scientific community all in the name of money for the few and keeping the gap between the rich and poor as wide as possible. The largest contributor to the rapid development and progress of poor countries over the last few decades is fossil fuels as they are relatively efficient and cheap. Try running industry on alternative energy and take good note of the environmental hazards with producing and maintaining these as compered to fossil fuels. It is dangerous also to make a religion out of a scientific hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming) especially when to this day has no significant empirical evidence to support it.

It’s clear that Pope Francis made caring for the climate an issue of faith and morals, so there is no wiggling out of it. Laudato Si is an encyclical that is every bit as authoritative as Humanae vitae.

I am all for caring for the environment. I do not think that CO2 is descructive to the environment. Higher levels result in better crop yield. And human food production (even in Africa) today is the best it has ever been to the point where we have more than enough food to feed the world right now (all 7 billion of us). Conflating caring for the environment with believing in an unproven hypothesis is what seems to be going on here with some people.

There is no scientific consensus on the moment when a fertilized egg becomes a human person.

There requires no consensus for this. Science doesn’t work on consensus. It works on evidence. There is sufficient evidence to show that a fertilized egg is alive and that it also has the same genetic composition as an adult human being. Therefore it is a human at a different developmental stage than an adolescent or mature adult. Most science texts and papers on embryology etc testify to this fact. Such as:

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

Source:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

However, JPII wrote that we must treat it as if it were a person out of an abundance of caution. The same can be said about climate change. We must alter our behavior and reduce carbon emissions out of an abundance of caution.

Not when the abundance of caution involves a plan that costs far more human lives than would be lost while adapting to naturally occurring climate change. A plan that and takes modern mankind into the stone age. All for what? To save 1 degree Celsius (best case scenario) over a 50 year period if ALL fossil fuel use was immediately ceased worldwide?

This has gone beyond any scientific debate. This is a ProLife issue that we are asked to embrace for moral reasons. If we don’t, millions will die and the deniers will be held accountable for their suffering.

As I said above this is a strawman argument.


#111

You appear to be in the dark about the saga of Galileo.


#112

You appear to be in the dark about the saga of Galileo.

Well if I am then so is the Catholic Church Historians:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy

Please share the source of your alternative facts on the matter.


#113

Thanks for the calibration.


#114

That’s just the thing most scientists do not say this either. So your view is based on 2 sets of wrong information:

  1. Science is not decided by consensus
  2. The majority of “climate scientists” do not believe that mankind is a significant driver of climate change

#115

You are most welcome :slight_smile:
I think I may have just raised the yardstick for evidence for climate change actually. Strangely with all the “overwhelming evidence” claims being made no advocate of AGW has been able to even state (based on scientific experimentation) how much warming fossil fuel activity is contributing right now or has for the last few decades years whether in China or the US or anywhere or any such figures…we just have to take in of faith and trust them…right?


#116

The link does nto appear to be written by “Catholic Church Historians”, whomever they are.
But it is not bad; it clearly diverges from your remarks on the subject.

Any follow-up on violations of the laws of thermodynamics?


#117

Can you offer some proof on this whopper?


#118

Perhaps. please provide evidence that the polcies advanced to mitigates AGW will take modern mankind into the stone age.


#119

You found it! Thanks!


#120

Your point #1 is only applicable to people who can understand the science - which generally means scientists. Have you ever personally verified even the simpler Special Relativity of Einstein? There are people who have. And you believe them because they say so - not because you have seen the evidence - unless you happen to be one of those few people who have done the experiments.

Your point #2 is just wrong. A majority of climate scientists do agree that human activity is significantly changing the climate. Depending on how the survey questions are phrased, you get slightly different numbers, but none of the surveys produce a number less than 50%.


#121

The link does nto appear to be written by “Catholic Church Historians”, whomever they are.
But it is not bad; it clearly diverges from your remarks on the subject.

I did not say the article was written by them. I merely sent you a link to the same material upheld by RCC historians as the most probable story. How does it diverge from my remarks exactly?

Any follow-up on violations of the laws of thermodynamics?

Sure. My mistake. The theory is based on aspects of thermodynamics but is actually the study of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes. See the excerpt below:

There are two types of processes (or reactions): spontaneous and non-spontaneous. Spontaneous changes, also called natural processes, proceed when left to themselves, and in the absence of any attempt to drive them in reverse. The sign convention of changes in free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamic measurements. This means a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in free energy, but to a positive change for the surroundings. Examples include:

  • a smell diffusing in a room
  • ice melting in lukewarm water
  • salt dissolving in water
  • iron rusting.
    The laws of thermodynamics govern the direction of a spontaneous process, ensuring that if a sufficiently large number of individual interactions (like atoms colliding) are involved, then the direction will always be in the direction of increased entropy.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/

Instructive here is that the laws of thermo govern spontaneous processes to the extent to which heat energy (transferred by excited atoms in the case of the oceans) should be in the direction of increased entropy. If therefore the oceans were “hiding” the extra heat on the globe preventing any significant temperature increase from being measured for over 15 years then this would defy physical laws unless some other force which would prevent the movement of heat in the direction of increased entropy (surface temperatures) existed only for the last 15+ years. What is this force and why has it only been operational during the last 15 years and why was it not causing heat to be absorbed and stay hidden in the deep oceans before 1998-1999? More questions than answers using their logic. What would have made sense for the IPCC to say is that there was no warming and they cannot yet explain exactly why. If you cannot measure the temperature of the deep oceans then how can you say that this accounts for the hiatus in global warming? Further to this why continue to say that the Earth has continued to warm even though you just admitted it has not warmed statistically for 15+ years?


#122

Cash for Clunkers hurt the poor by taking a good chunk of used cars off the market and raising the prices of those remaining. The only people who really benefited from this program were people who were rich enough to buy new cars. And the really poor who owned really old cars weren’t eligible.


#123

[quote=“LeafByNiggle, post:120, topic:449307”]
Your point #1 is only applicable to people who can understand the science - which generally means scientists. Have you ever personally verified even the simpler Special Relativity of Einstein?[/quote]

I studied physics in college and did a minor in Environmental Physics. I am also an avid reader and researcher of all things science. Even without this all it takes to understand if a theory is sound or not is to find out what the theory is proposing and look at the evidence presented via explanation or the numbers. I have done both for AGW and have not seen anything to warrant good evidence. I have actually seen the opposite including data fraud and personal attacks against anyone who is legitimately skeptical (because science by its very nature is skeptical and not accepting blindly on faith) about the hypothesis of AGW.

I do not have to do the experiments to know if what is presented as evidence of a claim is actually not substantial. All it takes is a basic understanding of the scientific method, how to read graphs and critical analysis of information. If what is presented as evidence for climate change is data obtained from data models (which seem to contradict the actual measured data every year) then this cannot be considered good evidence. Especially when the correlation shown by the evidence is not permissible as evidence for causation in science. This would be like me thinking that the action of several people opening umbrellas simultaneously was the cause of rain. This is a correlation but everyone knows that looking at correlations alone does not tell you what caused the effect. The proponents of man made Climate change use this logic and poorly too. When there is warming one year they blame man made climate change, when there is cooling one year they blame man made climate change, when there are fewer storms and hurricanes (as it the case for the last 20 years) it is man made climate change and if there are more it is the same culprit. No matter what happens you can bet it will be blamed on man made climate change by the proponents of this latest religious fad.

You didn’t read my link did you? Please read it or re read it and stop restating this ignorance of the facts. The consensus has been refuted for years now. There is no majority and no climate science is not done by consensus. Because you do not know climate science does not mean that you should listen to the loudest voices on the subject. It means that you should listen to all voice on the matter and weigh the evidence presented with your common sense. The quieter voices who center their arguments on data and not personal attacks are usually the ones you need to pay attention to more since they are less likely to have a dog in the fight ($$$$).


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.