Pope Francis and President-Elect Trump Disagree on Global Warming Threat:
Yet the Holy Father will try and use his bully pulpit to influence the incoming administration. With the notable non-climate-scientist Stephen Hawking by his side, Francis said, “The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else.”…
At the risk of being accused of sewing “difficulty and division”, or causing “grave scandal”, or worse, allow me to add an entry to the dubia (questions) being asked of (and ignored by) Pope Francis.
After multiple decades of failed predictions, after repeatedly promising doom but failing to deliver, after years of mistaking theory for observation, is it still true that a scientific hypothesis, like runaway man-made global warming, that fails to make skillful forecasts, should be abandoned?
Now I know the answer, and you, dear reader…
Don’t be dubious; do it, baby.
Update This guy’s pictures of temperature ‘adjustments.’
Perhaps we should be grateful he spends more time pontificating on the hoax of climate change about which he knows little about, than making a hoax of Catholic doctrine which he should know much about.
Even though I had concerns about Trump as president, Climate Change put me over the top.
Every other Republican nominee was downright squishy on the subject of Climate Change (even the vaunted Ted Cruz).
You could almost hear them ruminating. I don’t trust the people telling me that climate change is a problem … but, if the Pope says so ….
How about Francis opening up the Vatican purse and “do something” about that which he is so worried? The definition of Oppressive Altruism is trying to do good with other people’s money.
I THINK you meant “It’s charitable to suppose he does NOT”.
It’s scary to consider where L Ron Hubbard would be on the question
(L Ron Hubbard once theorized paraphrasing … If you smoke … then NOT SMOKING ENOUGH causes cancer.)
The irony of a Pope giving his verdict on issues of science seems to elude many.
Why would we ask the Pope about failed global warming predictions; does his opinion/assessment on that topic have any real value?
That seems like asking one’s plumber for an opinion re laser eye surgery.
Experts are good at rendering advice on topics in which they’re expert. It doesn’t mean that because they’re an expert in one area their opinion necessarily has merit elsewhere.
The Pope isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a theologian. As such, shouldn’t he be sticking to matters of faith? This reflects an ancient philosophy, with a more modern idiom; see: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/238941/origin-of-stick-to-your-knitting
The real question to pose to the Pope isn’t some debate about the credibility of failed models — I don’t think he should be given the chance to discuss that at all — rather, he should simply be asked to shut up about rendering his views as an authority on topics [like global warming] of which he has no credible expertise.
Maybe if he’d done that he wouldn’t be in his present situation in which some of his subordinates — also experts in the Pope’s domain — have essentially shown, before the whole world, that his Pope-ship seems to hold some significantly hypocritical doctrinal viewpoints.
When an expert is shown to be something less than expert in their particular area of expertise (i.e. if they’re shown to be a bit stupid about what they’re smart about), it kinda calls into question their credibility on every topic they’re inclined to discuss …
Many of the advocates of policy based on “facts”, that is.
AGW is nothing more than a runaway scam that has cost
humanity billions with more to come. The greens were so
successful with their DDT ban and ozone hole scare that
they figured correctly the rubes would line up and bend over for
insertion of the next money funnel. The fact that there is no practical
replacement for fossil fuels has not stopped them as evidenced
by the recent insanity seen in the Dakotas. The world is filled with
gullible Luddites and artful deceivers and it appears the Pope is prepared to lend the authority and credence of his office to this global deception. I
doubt that he is aware of the perfidy of his CAGW informants and
now acts more as the lamb than the Shepard.
That he is accompanied in this by Steven Hawkins as some sort of
centerpiece of scientific authority should come as no surprise.
A true believer in black holes and the big bang he’s perfect for the job.
Theories trotted out with much fanfare and no evidence, roughly equivalent
to the AGW nonsense, ideas that have set physics back by several decades
with packs of zealot adherents unwilling to entertain the possibility
that they might have it wrong.
Even after the Pope’s full-throated denunciation of air conditioning, I cannot convince our parish priest to turn it off for all Masses celebrated in the Mississippi Delta summer months.
sewing ” difficulty and division”
You really have to do something about that spell checker.
I too have a love / mate relation ship with spell check (mate).
“sewing” is spelled just find
Well, you guys have Trump on your side, and the rest of us have Pope Francis. You can keep Trump. You jokes. You are now the Jerry Springer guests of intellectualism.
It could be the Pope is addressing this an article of faith and not science. the proponents seem to Think of me as a heretic for not “believing” in climate change. Faith is the evidence of things unseen and I keep looking for empirical evidence. I have to restrict my faith to things like redemption and eternal life where I see no possibility of empirical evidence coming into play but many find dangerous man caused global warming by faith without the bother of hard evidence.
But “you guys” despise Pope Francis and everything – literally everything – he stands for, apart from the economic naivety. How dishonest can you get?
“You are now the Jerry Springer guests of intellectualism”,
Says the man whose avatar is the perfect representation of a Jerry Springer
fan boy. Odd you would bring him up he did after all cater to the credulous and
gullible, in short your type of people.
In a report I wrote title as tittle and the stupid spell checker thought it was just fine. I proofed the report and didn’t even notice it was the wrong word.
There are so many deplorables out there to draw from, fascism will always have a wider audience than the Pope can muster.
Evidently the pope has no university education in chemistry.
Who are we to judge his hoary notions of atmospheric modeling?
The Pope isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a theologian.
He’s not a theologian, either. He’s a pastor. (Not every priest or bishop is a theologian.) What he writes about is our duty to be prudent stewards and take care of our inheritance. As far as the science goes, he relies on the advice of the “settled science” as “given.” This is always far riskier than relying on, say, revelation. The last time Popes relied on settled science was in 1610. You would think they would have learned from that.
Shouldn’t it be “sowing” as in planting seeds? So that after you sow you can reap.
Deplorable and Fascist what’s a Marxist to do but
place their paucity of argument on full display.
I feel for Catholics struggling to come to terms with this Manchurian Pope. What to do, what to do. What I did, I did long ago, but it feels so familiar. I remember a catechism teacher telling us that the worst thing a person can do in the eyes of God, even worse than murder, was to cause a believer to lose faith. But what is one to do when respected authority is preaching evil?
When I was a young kid, just learning to read, I read a story about young girls bringing all sorts of lawsuits against each other. The story made absolutely no sense to me. Later I learned that sewing was done with needle and thread, not in a courtroom. (Thank you Perry Mason.)
Pope Francis forgives you. Neither prayers nor confession required.
If capable, study Hawking books. Which shall sharpen your mind.
The irony of a Pope giving his verdict on issues of science seems to elude me.
I don’t think you should believe media reports of what the Pope thinks.
Many reporters are only qualified in Media Studies and can be fooled by astute politicians.
I’m not Roman Catholic but he seems to be mainly a pastor. He has said the Church (RC) does not pronounce on science. If he emphasises the global warming it may be so that he can protect the Church in countries where global warming is the civil religion. Germany comes to mind. AND Cuba. He has a world wide church to look after and if he annoys the governments the Catholic people will suffer. Diplomacy would require him to temporise with extreme positions held by Politicians.