NOTE: Since WUWT has the broadest reach of any climate blog and is essentially a “publication of record”, I have been asked to carry this opinion piece by the Heartland Institute. I have not received any compensation directly or indirectly for publishing this rebuttal. – Anthony Watts
By Joseph L. Bast, Director, Heartland Institute
On May 3, Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and “special adviser” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, wrote a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter. Since he takes aim specifically at The Heartland Institute, a reply seems to be in order.
Sachs wrote about an event convened by Pope Francis on global warming and sustainability at the Vatican in Rome the prior week. Observing that only alarmists and advocates of population control – most notably, Jeffrey Sachs – were on the program, I decided Heartland should send some real scientists and other experts to Rome to provide a different opinion. Our delegation to Rome consisted of the following individuals, all of them willing to travel a great distance on short notice and participate without honoraria:
- E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
- Hal Doiron, former NASA Skylab and Space Shuttle engineer
- Richard Keen, Ph.D., meteorology instructor at the University of Colorado
- Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
- Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent, ClimateDepot.com
- Tom Sheahen, Ph.D., vice chairman of the Board of Directors of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
- Elizabeth Yore, J.D., former general counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Virginia
Jim Lakely and Keely Drukala, Heartland’s director and deputy director of communications, respectively, traveled to Rome as well and managed the complicated and last-minute logistics of the trip.
We created a webpage at https://www.heartland.org/Vatican-Environment-Workshop where we posted news releases and opinion-editorials expressing our concern that the pope was being misinformed and offering links to more reliable scientific research and commentary on Christian views toward the environment. Following the event and safe return home of our delegation, we posted all the presentations and video from the event on the website.
Our presence generated extensive worldwide press attention. We were able to reach millions of people with our simple message that “climate change is not a crisis.”
The Vatican and United Nations seemed shocked that anyone would criticize their bias or the lack of scientific credentials of their speakers. Peter Raven, a speaker at the summit, devoted several minutes of his remarks to commenting on our presence, and now Sachs’ essay appears to be part of the UN’s effort at damage control.
Sachs did not attend our press conference or any of the presentations our experts made the following day. To our knowledge, none of the persons scheduled to speak at the “summit” chose to attend our public events. Nevertheless, Sachs writes: “the libertarian Heartland Institute, supported over the years by the Koch brothers, mounted a fruitless protest outside of St Peter’s Square.”
The Heartland Institute has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation, affiliated with “the Koch brothers” during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention “the Koch brothers” unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow improper level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?
Our press conference and seminar were not a “protest.” We weren’t on the street waving signs or shouting slogans. Our speakers were highly qualified and their writing and speaking relating to the pope and the Catholic Church were respectful and focused narrowly on the science, economics, and politics of climate change.
The dishonesty in Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Barack Obama sets the tone, comparing global warming realists to members of the “flat earth society” and rather ominously calling on his supporters to “hold climate change deniers’ feet to the fire.”
In fact, those who say global warming is a man-made crisis gave up arguing the science and economics behind their campaign long ago. They now rely only on exaggeration, lies, and ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with them.
Sachs is correct about one thing: The Heartland Institute is indeed a libertarian organization. We are devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic issues. We make it very clear on our website and in interviews that it was this perspective that led us to examine the science behind the global warming scare. That examination led us to become (in the words of The Economist) “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change.”
Sachs says some “free-market conservatives … have followed their ideology to the point of denying well-established science.” He seems blind to the possibilities that the science is not “well-established” or that his fellow socialists and “progressives” have themselves fallen prey to this malady. What else explains their refusal to admit there has been no warming for more than 18 years, that real data show no increase in extreme weather events, and that the benefits of using fossil fuels outweigh the costs, by orders of magnitude, even including the vastly inflated costs attributed to climate change that might occur centuries from now?
Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies, but on this issue he is letting his liberal ideology cloud his judgment. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.
Sachs ends his essay with a call to people of all faiths to “fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and to the future of Earth.” That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reached the starting line yet.
# # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a spelling error in the penultimate para – “his ILliberal ideology”?
Years ago when I worked for a small firm, the president during weekly meetings would invariably ask, “What do we need to do to become the penultimate company?” (apparently thinking ‘penultimate’ meant ‘first place’).
I always answered, “We’re already there. Can I go home now?”
He never ever got it 🙂
Maybe your firm was last and the president wanted to move up?
Chuckle, chuckle.
Reminds me of the hackneyed use of “epicentre”. Even more of a centre than “centre”.
Well to a geophysicist the hypocenter is where a fault first ruptures — almost always below the earth’s surface — and the epicenter is the radial projection onto the surface. But yes, your point is well taken: the layman uses epicenter to squeeze every last drop of emphasis out of their usually barren point … rather like ‘very unique.’
‘Ground zero’ also gets brutally abused as a replacement for ‘center.’
“Portland is ground zero for lumbersexual lattes.”
Tim is the penult of penultimate.
Um, is the penult of penumbra.
Pen is the penult of penult.
From Pewsitter:
Global Warming Encyclical: Shouldn’t the Vatican promote a Catholic agenda rather than a global political agenda driven by the UN and the Obama Administration?
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1733-an-unholy-alliance
When Jeffrey Sachs, the papal environmental advisor, was asked by a reporter about his radical 20-year history of supporting population control through abortion and other reproductive rights service, Sachs cleverly avoided the answer by stating, “It really isn’t the essential issue here; that’s a topic for a different day.”
He sounds like Nancy Pelosi, when she said, “we have to pass the Obamacare, so that you can find out what is in it.”
“Sachs cleverly avoided the answer by stating, “It really isn’t the essential issue here; that’s a topic for a different day.” ”
So, Heartland could say, vis a vis getting money for a non-climate change topic from the Koch brothers: ““It really isn’t the essential issue here; that’s a topic for a different day.”
For the first time in history, the Vatican is now lead by a Jesuit, a group which is militantly Catholic; which spends most of its energies sucking up to the movers and leaders of the world; a group which believes in “liberation theology” (read – communist), and a group which would embrace anything which will destabilize any “protestant” or free society. This is their M.O. since their inception. The Black Pope now controls the White Pope. The previous popes would always keep the Jesuits on a short leash, using the Society to do its dirty work, but the Franciscans must be at a low ebb to have allowed this wolf in the door, and a resignation of a sitting pope, to boot!
INET/Institute for New Economic Thinking
C0-Founders:
Jim Balsillie, BlackBerry and founder of The Centre for International Governance Innovation/CIGI, Canada.
William Janeway
George Soros
Advisory Board includes:
Jeffrey Sachs, Earth Institute
http://www.ineteconomics.org/about/leadership
CBC NEWS/World, Aug.9, 2010
“UN climate panel includes RIM’s Balsillie”
“Balsillie is one of the 21 members on the new UN High-level Panel on Global Sustainability that will come up with a new blueprint for sustainable growth.”
The UN Panel also included Susan Rice, U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-climate-panel-includes-rim-s-balsillie-1.929025?ref=rss
Catholic Herald, U.K., Dec.10, 2010
“WikiLeaks: Vatican promised to lobby for climate change agreement”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/12/10/wikileaks-vatican-promised-to-lobby-for-climate-change-agreement
Paul767
May 8, 2015 at 11:18 am
“For the first time in history, the Vatican is now lead by a Jesuit, a group which is militantly Catholic;”
The Jesuits are militantly Jesuit. It is not clear that they are Catholic or even religious.
I posted this on another thread, maybe more appropriate here.
HAH!! On Aussie MSM, channel 7, a “ticker tape” newsbite at the bottom of the screen says “Pope made honorary globetrotter”!!!
Is he subbing in for Curly??
Nah. Meadowlark Lemon.
RayG
May 7, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Nah. Meadowlark Lemon.
I LOLed.
M Simon
May 8, 2015 at 1:24 am
RayG
May 7, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Nah. Meadowlark Lemon.
I LOLed.
———————————-
Me too.
Thank you to all those fighting this good fight. We are brothers and sisters and I am proud to stand with all of you.
Ditto in spades. And much thanks to Anthony for posting. The efforts of the many Davids against the insidious juggernauts – the UN, IPCC, and various political machines are paying off. We know David wins in the end saving this canary in this mine. Unfortunately, there will be more canaries to save – another topic…
Rarely, sir, do I find an individual who mixes even more metaphors than I do, but I stand in awe:-) Put the blender on puree!
Bast’s has indeed provided a proper and measured reply. Sachs’ ears will burn as they should, regardless of his likely silence on the issue.
I would only say that qualifying Jeffrey Sachs (or anyone on the American political “left”) as liberal is a significant misuse of the term. The term was stolen under the cover of widespread ignorance and its misappropriation brings ridicule to everyone involved. There is nothing whatsoever liberal about the Democratic party. Not a thing. There is not even a hint of comprehension of the meaning of the word “liberal” in its socio-political agenda. The label “liberal” has effectively been kidnapped and has for long being tortured to say and justify anything. For the sake of sanity, it must be rescued.
Words change meaning over time, Brute. While it’s true that “liberal”, in many ways, now means the opposite of what it once meant, there’s nothing that can be done about it now, except perhaps wait for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
“Federalist” and “anti-federalist” have switched their meanings since they were first used in the late 1800s, due to the fact that people misunderstood “the Federalist Papers” as being WRITTEN BY Federalists, when in actuality they were ADDRESSED TO the (oppositional) Federalists. You see, a Federalist was one who supported the FEDERATION (under the Articles of Confederation, the original founding document of the United States, several years before the Constitution was ratified) of US states, which was basically nothing more than the UN, loosely binding the INDEPENDENT States together for a common purpose (mutual defense) but otherwise leaving them sovereignty over their own lands. The Anti-Federalists wanted to abolish the Articles of Confederation and institute a much stronger central government. Of course, the Anti-Federalists won, but in doing so, will be forever remembered (falsely) as “Federalists”.
“Organic” USED TO MEAN “contains carbon”. But with the cooperation of a US government that has now usurped even the power to define words, it means food that is grown without man-made fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, and otherwise according to USDA “organic” standards, and any food producer that uses the word “organic”, in its original (and still truthful) sense, on its product packaging, can be fined millions of dollars.
They have a lot to lose. No wonder they’re to bellicose!
“Sachs ends his essay with a call to people of all faiths to “fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and to the future of Earth.” That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reached the starting line yet.”
Well said Joseph. It is very sad that so many otherwise intelligent people have allowed their genuine concern for the environment to blind them to the fact that the CAGW theory has been hijacked by totalitarian left-wing elements to bring about their own control over the people of the world.
I for one will be DELIGHTED from one point of view if the Pope endorses AGW Alarmism
It will ensure that AGW is seen for what it really is, a belief system rather than a matter of Science.
The many parallels with Galileo almost four hundred years ago are very striking. He was too found guilty of disagreeing with the then consensus & barely escaped with his life. The Church, MY Church, has only just admitted its error.
I am very upset that the Vatican should be so mislead as to, once again, step away from matters of Faith & Morals which is where its self-declared interest & supposed competence lies & meddle where it clearly knows nothing.
Amen to that last statement! But of course, here in the USA we Catholics are used to seeing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issue political pronouncements on almost a weekly basis, not one of which they have the slightest competency to make. This Pope (assuming the encyclical actually says what we all anticipate it will say) appears to have thrown over, or never to have understood, the distinction between our duty to be stewards of Creation and the making of prudential judgments by secular governments. I don’t believe he’s as intellectually incompetent as the latter alternative would require, so I must conclude that he is exceeding his competency by choice, not negligence.
Modern Environmentalism is an original sin religion that has a lot in common with historical Catholicism.
“We lived in Eden until man ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Because of man’s arrogance and greed we have been cast out of paradise. Now, we are can mitigate our guilt only by granting status and power to the righteous among us.”
Sound familiar? This is one of the oldest routes to power that there is.
Galileo got in trouble because of his temperment and for publicly embarassing the Pope, who was a friend of his, not because of what he taught.
He was however upset that he could only teach it as a theory, suppositionly not as true. He couldn’t prove heliocentury with the equipment he had and, surprise, he was WRONG. Turns out he believed like Copurnicus that the planets went around in perfect circular orbits, and even riduculed those who suggested ellipses, which is the actual case.
oops, maybe HELIOCENTRICITY would have been the better word.
Anyways, the Catholic Church isn’t anti-science, that’s why there are so many priest-scientists making big discoveries, like LeMaitre figuring out the Big Bang (and correcting Einstein no less) and why so many craters on the moon are named after Jesuits, the same order Pope Francis belongs to, and Pope Francis has a diploma in chemistry.
Anyways, the Catholic Church isn’t anti-science,
=====================
How much CO2 has been produced burning heretics at the stake?
Vatican’s chief exorcist warns that practicing yoga is ‘satanic’
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049612_Vatican_exorcist_yoga_Harry_Potter.html#ixzz3ZYN7BdUv
Jim, it is refreshing to hear some truth on the Galileo story! It is so rare to hear from anyone who has any idea of what the actual history is! In adition to your points, the ‘persecution’ of Galileo was almost laughable. House arrest at his friend’s estate. Tough life he must have had there…
Jeff in Calgary May 8, 2015 at 10:50 am
Nope. Galileo’s daughter sacrificed her life to care for the old man. He was denied all communication with the outside world. Ouch! Through various deceptions, he did manage to send his last manuscript to friends.
John, many, MANY, people confuse belief with reality. It continues to amaze me.
January 2011
British Court Rules AGW a Religion
A British court ruling by Mr Justice Michael Burton stated that “a belief in man-made climate change… is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations Act.” This signals that discrimination on the basis of green views is as unacceptable as sexism, racism or religious prejudice.
Now anyone who shows open contempt for a colleague who does these things in the name of upholding “sustainable office practices” or caring for the environment can be deemed prejudicial, and “green” workers can take their bosses to court if they feel they have been discriminated against because of their environmental convictions.
The ruling was a response to the treatment of Tim Nicholson. A former head of sustainability at Grainger, one of the UK’s largest property companies, Nicholson won his case that he should be able to take his former employer to a tribunal, arguing that his views on climate change were met with contempt and eventually dismissal at work. Nicholson says he was made redundant because of his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”
This has set a precedent on how environmental views are regarded in English law: not as a political outlook which can be held up to scrutiny and debate like any other political outlook, but as faith, as gospel, and anyone who contests it might face retribution.
Because that is what Nicholson’s “philosophical belief” amounts to. As Dinah Rose, QC for Nicholson, explained, it is a belief “that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations.”
Nicholson is demanding that opposition to his green antics should be regarded as a form of bigotry, he also believes that his convictions should be beyond reprehension.
Nicholson was affronted by Grainger’s chief executive’s decision to fly a staff member to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry, which he had left behind in London. He was also angry about not being able to set up a company-wide “carbon management system” because colleagues failed to provide the necessary data.
Nicholson’s case is about seeking state protection for environmentalist views. And because that is all they really are – views – they should be up for contestation and critique.
Environmentalism does resemble a religion. It has turned into a moralistic campaign where “carbon sinners” must be punished through taxes and fines or be rendered social outcasts. Any objection to the “absolute truth” of an impending climate catastrophe is treated as heresy. The greens’ ritualistic behaviour resembles religious rituals, with carbon offsetting as the modern form of penance and the endless rules on what food is ethical and how to separate household waste looking like a secular version of kosher laws.
But the rise of environmentalism has little in common with how older religions emerged and how they developed, or with the meaning and sense of community they can provide. And while religion at least offers the hope of redemption or some form of transcendence, and a belief in the power of man to shape his world, environmentalism is an inherently pessimistic worldview which says we should forsake our ambitions in the name of protecting the planet.
By first demanding that green views be put on a par with religion in the eyes of the law and by then suggesting that green views should be elevated above religion because they are “underpinned by science,” Nicholson not only debased religious belief but also expressed an ignorant attitude towards the scientific process. Science emerged through an intellectual struggle to free humanity from the tyranny of sacred dogma, and science depends on an open-minded and open-ended attitude towards experimentation and the testing out of ideas.
Nicholson’s efforts to stamp out opposition to those who “believe in anthropogenic climate change” is an expression of dogmatic thinking. In his new role as head of the healthcare section of the 10:10 climate change campaign, he will at last be in a safe haven, free to spread the green gospel without a colleague batting an eyelid. It is a shame Nicholson is not satisfied with preaching to the converted; the ruling on his case may make it harder for any workplace to conduct a proper discussion around how to deal with environmental issues, or to choose to ignore them altogether.
They are going to have trouble with that in Garland, Texas.
Sasha,
I see it slightly differently , but have no knowledge of this judgment / ruling and am going entirely from what you say about it-
If the ruling was based on viewing AGW as a ‘belief’ and on a par with religious beliefs then it seems to me that in essence it :
(a) protects the believer (AGW in this case) from any form of discrimination, abuse or bad treatment as a result of their belief, and
(b) treats AGW as a ‘belief’ system as are all religions rather than proven or provable fact, and
(c) allows an employer to set clear rules to prevent any expression of that belief system in the workplace (christians have legally been prevented from this and from wearing / displaying symbols such as a crucifix in the workplace where an employer bans this), and
(d) as a corollary must protect and provide relief for sceptics (non-believers) from all and any discrimination or abuse by believers as a result of their scepticism / non-belief
That last point, or so it seems to me, opens a whole can of worms for the AGW believers in the UK who set out to discriminate against or in any way abuse or belittle sceptics / non believers as the ruling leaves it open to argue successfully in court that they are protected in the same way that agnostics and atheists are protected ……..
I may be wrong, but that is my quick take on it.
CAN I HAVE AN AMEN!!!!!
Good response to a fringe group of environmental zealots who fail to see that fossil fuels have allowed Man to deal with Weather of all types, and Man is not going to give them up just to stop miniscule changes in Weather, with any such changes being more likely than not to be beneficial.
Sinagoguery.
this is the same clown that used to write for Discover Mag…..that’s all you need to know
Survey is a hoot….only 1000 people and he claims what?
“”an overwhelming majority of respondents (78%) said that, “if nothing is done to reduce global warming,” the future consequences for the US would be “somewhat serious” or “very serious.””
using his same metric……87% say it hasn’t hurt them
Nicely said.
Have a lawyer send a letter to Sachs legally informing him of the extent of Koch donations and threaten a suit for libel if he ever lies about it again or seems to condone the truth of that falsehood if said by someone in his presence.
Eugene WR Gallun
In fact send such letters to all the liars out there. Copies are cheap.
I wonder if the Pope realizes that he is exhaling that which these absurdists wish to demonize?
How Do They Make the Pope Smoke?
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49429/how-do-they-make-pope-smoke
First thing I thought of was your picture from the other day of the lady with the “flower-top bra”.
With the ballots of the election and wet or dry straw.
The Pope is against smoking. Especially if it is medicinal.
Let Sachs debate ‘mano a mano’ on the science with a scientist focused on the observationally based understanding of the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS),
Then we can see his basis for his alarm on climate.
John
Sorry, ‘mano a mano’ would be more like Oreskes vs Figueres.
Jeffrey doesn’t have the Sachs.
Max Photon on May 7, 2015 at 4:50 pm
– – – – – – – – –
Max Photon,
Hey, you are getting pithy with that comment. Sounds like a line of our a Mickey Spillane book. I love his books.
John
I thought mano a mano was hand to hand?
Thanks, Joseph L. Bast.
Well-written reply. I’m happy to see those donations were put to good use and that the Heartland Institute is putting up a good fight.
It is sad that such a debate has degenerated into name calling. Don’t think for a moment that this fight is over. There is too much at stake and too many $’s in the offing for those on the bandwagon to give up. It does have aspects of totalitarianism as Ray mentions. I mean Christiana Figueres just the other day told Australia to move away from coal adding “there is no space for coal”. It is as if in their blindness to do good they are willing to do evil to those that depend on cheap fuel resources. They just don’t get it and will never while the funds are there. It is a long hard fight we face.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote this in 1939, seems to apply to AGW supporters.
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority. “
A writer of genius. I read everything of his long ago as a precocious kid, forgot nearly every word but internalized much of what he wrote. When I feel uneasy about what I am doing it is likely that I am violating those “rules”. Lately I ponder this from “”Stranger in a Strange Land”:
“There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk “his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor” on an outcome dubious. Those who fail the challenge are merely overgrown children, can never be anything else.”
And one of the great tragedies of our age is that, by not considering philosophy a subject worth teaching (or else by delegating it’s teaching to fools, usually fools with a political agenda) we continue raising generation after generation of students who enter University (if they make it even that far) with an academic mind. That is because it is enormously convenient for teachers from kindergarten through twelfth grade to teach obedience to authority in the erroneous belief that they are teaching students proper discipline. And all too often, even teachers seeking to teach simple “facts” on the basis of their “authority” in the classroom are plain old wrong.
The ubiquity of internet-connected cell phones is making something of an impact here. My son (being an obnoxious, undisciplined rejector of authority) would sit in the classes of his less competent teachers in high school and when they said something that was pure bullshit, he would look it up on the internet on the spot, raise his hand, and correct the teacher. This did not make him popular with those teachers, of course, because it clearly demonstrated their lack of authority, which even in academia is earned, not granted by fiat.
I spend a fair amount of my time teaching philosophy along with physics, and usually start my physics classes off by telling students to their faces that they should not believe what I am going to teach them just because I am the professor and hence the supposed “authority” they are learning from. I point out that the course’s lab, even though it at best spot-checks the highly idealized science, should be the place where they come to trust what I tell them.
Then I point out that besides, everything I’m going to teach them is wrong (this is typically first year introductory classical physics) because the world, when one does careful experiments, turns out to be relativistic and quantum mechanical, and because even things as “certain” in our everyday experience as Universal Gravitation are not fully understood in a completely consistent framework of physics. But that what we learn will be a darned good approximation that is more than sufficient to gain substantial insight into all sorts of everyday phenomena.
This doesn’t suddenly fix the problem — I have no idea how to fix the real problem, given that religions are based entirely on teaching unprovable absurdity (by Authority, of course) so that 80 to 90% of the world’s children are taught under a system of explicit threat and punishment by both their parents and their parents’ religious Authoritative scripture and clergy to believe things that make no sense from the age of 2 or 3, and then sent to schools where teacher incompetence is routinely disguised by granting them the status of Authority unchallengable by any student save at risk of punishment. To me it is amazing that the human mind is sufficiently resiliant that even after two decades of behavioral conditioning and threats, it can still often be set free by a single scientific experience, by a single proper exposure to a way of knowing things that make sense and that don’t rely on Authority to do so.
rgb
“religions are based entirely on teaching unprovable absurdity” – rgb
Beware the teacher that supports his contention with superlatives, for he is likely to ENTIRELY overstate his position to the point of ABSURDITY. I won’t presume to speak to the pretext for all the world’s religions as you do, and therefore horribly overstate my expertise. I am, however, comfortable speaking for the origin of Christianity, and for it I will take notable exception to your statement.
The central message of Christianity is love. Love God. Love your fellow man. Yes, yes, I know, you are saying love is absurd and unprovable, as I am sure your son’s love is for you. Hopefully you somehow still manage to have a meaningful relationship despite it being based upon something absurd and unprovable. But let’s look beyond the irrational things in Christianity like faith, hope, and love to which you don’t subscribe and see if we can’t find somethings more concrete and practical.
Don’t kill. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat on your spouse. Your life will be better if you don’t do these things. Hey now, surely that registers fairly high on the provable and not-so-absurd scale of things, right? Surely some empirical tests could be devised to test those out. From the Proverbs to the parables, from managing stress to dealing with grief, there are a lot of pearls of wisdom within the bible that will benefit those who listen regardless of their level of faith. Surely a loveless, faithless, hopeless, prove-it-to-me physicist can find something practical in all that which means Christianity is not ENTIRELY based upon unprovable absurdity.
All passive-aggressiveness aside (sorry, that seems to be the weapon of choice in this venue), the truth about faith is that it cannot be compelled upon anyone, and Christianity especially so. While a parent may take their child to church and hope to open their eyes to the possibility of faith, nobody can compel it upon another as you suggest. There are many children who fail to adopt faith despite their parent’s best efforts, and others whose parents never try to take them but they find their faith on their own. It is a product of free will, as it should be.
I am truly sorry that you have no faith, and pray my sarcastic remarks about your lack of hope and love are off the mark too. But you would do well to consider that some of the best things in this world are indeed unprovable and rationally absurd.
rgbatduke,
I agree with your prioritization of teaching philosophy in conjunction with any teaching.
I think the fix to the problem you stated is simply the formation of a culture where explicit knowledge of the history of philosophy is needed for basic use in applied reason. That cultural formation just takes focus and dedication to become the general culture. Let’s do it!
John
The Vatican’s focus is on what sorts of populism compatible with their doctrine can increase their membership, not arbitrating scientific debates. Hence actual scientific debate is rather beside the point and not likely to be appreciated.
To an extent I agree with you. However I believe they are well meaning and want to do good and are simply ill-informed. It has moved from a scientific debate to a moral imperative and the facts don’t matter. The only hope wrt the Vatican’s involvement is that there will be substantial push back on theological grounds. As far as the UN goes, they got their photo op and will milk it for all its worth.
“[snip -policy violation -mod]”
Well you certainly put us in our place!
Did you have some facts to share or were you just here to attack?
Pippen Fool’s been sippin’ the koolade again. He got so excited that he even posted on the wrong story.
Yeah Pippen, these libertarians have got to go. Freedom got us into all this mess and we need the UN to lead us out of the wilderness. When the iron curtain fell down, we rejoiced before we discovered that, although a lot of people came out who wanted a taste of this magic freedom stuff, totalitarian subverts also poured out and took up positions in the UN, world universities, environmental organizations, other NGOs and agencies of government to rise up patiently over time….to do the only thing they had been trained to do. The naive sycophant groupies of these wonderful global kumbaya movements, and the ready welcoming agencies like the UN and Greenpeas are cotton candy to those cunning devils spawned by nations of chess players. It was a surprise for the ideologues that whose strategies, honed over four generations, wasn’t needed. They were already in demand. There were hundreds of millions of folks, like yourself clasping their hands and learning to play the mandolin.
Um, you do know that China and Russia (as well as India) are among the most skeptical nations on Earth, right? China (IMO) is openly laughing at the entire world for being taken in by what is obviously a “movement” designed and supported by the very energy companies that are supposed to be the bad guys in league with general industrialists who want to keep the third world from ever being free and prosperous so that they can continue to be cheap labor for the first world. Cheap energy is the ticket out of poverty for two to three billion of the poorest people on Earth, the majority of whom live in China or India. Cheap energy reduces the profits of every oil company, coal company, and power company on Earth, as they make marginal profits proportional to the retail cost of their products — higher prices directly equal higher profits for a longer time and for less work. Russia these days is one of the countries that fairly regularly publishes refutations of some of the assertions of global warming — it’s not an academic kiss of death there AFAIK. India just doesn’t care. I think they’d rather burn Thorium than coal (China probably would as well) but neither country is going to leave another generation in eighteenth century poverty while the US and Europe continue to feast on modern technology and universal access to electricity, running water, sewage, refrigeration, a reliable and safe food supply, good health care, and prospects for our children.
I think you are diametrically mistaken about this being a totalitarian idea. At the moment, the more totalitarian countries are simply rejecting it. If you want to understand it, follow the money. Or wait four or five more years. If those years pass without substantial warming, or with some cooling, you can just wait for the U.S. Congress to follow the money under threat of subpeona and prosecution. Or, more likely not, since many congressional beaks get wet in the trough of money poured into the many corporate and research pockets open to receive it to “save the world from deniers”.
rgb
“Um, you do know that China and Russia (as well as India) are among the most skeptical nations on Earth, right?” – rgb
Countries like China and Russia already have state control and bureaucratic systems in place to ensure their ruling class has everything they want, and therefore have no need for interference from schemes like AGW. In fact, it might run interference with what they want to do.
Western democracies however won’t knowingly give power and freedom away, so a scheme like AGW and the wealth redistribution and power control over energy production is one way for statists to worm their way into such governments.
This was the most interesting “thought” on this post, and it’s deleted? As Pippen said, “What a joke”.
So what is the policy violation? Calling out an creationist “scientist” that has a PhD but has never done any scientific work? Really, that’s who you are protecting now, just because they work for Heartland?? Pretty sorry. Or are you that scared of Heartland? That’s interesting.
Pippen, since you are here blowing smoke without staying on topic,i surmise that you are here to disrupt,nothing more.
@PK:
It is crystal clear that it is you who is terrified of Heartland. Because you are the one who is always bringing them up. You cannot refute what they say, so you try to denigrate them with your pathetic and baseless ad hominem comments.
The fact is that Heartland is destroying your climate alarmist narrative. You don’t like that — we get that.
Tough.
Scared of Heartland? Because of a silly conference in DC with no real scientists but the average age of the speakers is past retirement? Because of a monthly cut and paste letter from Lordy Mockton based on the cherry picked record that he favors? I think not.
Oh, and dbs, this was updated just last September: https://www.heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights
Just in case you think Heartland has switched to the higher road.
Yers, PK, you are scared of Heartland. Terrified, really.
If they didn’t matter, you wouldn’t waste your time attacking them. Would you? No.
Heartland is a pro-American organization. It understands that there are UN forces at work that are trying to destroy our great country.
You have a clear choice here: either support the US of A, or support the UN. It’s a crystal clear decision. While I would hope and pray that you will make the right choice, I’m not optimistic. There is a real likelihood that you’re anti-American. We will see about that. Won’t we, PK?
Wow. The UN vs the old US of A. And don’t forget the Iranians. And the Russians too. And the Canadians, them too. They all want our to steal our English system of measurements (which the English don’t use any more) because they realize that with that they can dumb down the population because they cant figure out how many inches are in a mile, like most americans can’t.
But we aren’t paranoid, are we, dbs. No.
Pippen Kool
May 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm
Schizophrenics depend on tobacco. And they deserve a place at the table if only by proxy (me).
Joe, I’m sure you know that “libertarian” has become a derogatory appellation. That part is the scariest of all.
I know, right? And all they do is look after books!
They work at the Liberia?
I thought those were liberians.
No, Liberians own all those big ships. You must mean libarians.
Surely you mean ‘libertines?’
Surely you mean ‘libertines?’
I’m down with that. And up with it as well.
The Pope laments the state of the world’s poor. Yet he embraces the UN and their crusade against cheap energy…access to cheap energy is the only road to helping the poor. Very good article. Sachs and his ilk are the ones who need to look in the mirror, but sadly they will not.
It is easy to be confused with the seductive promise of aiding the poor. Oh, how I resent the UN, the AGW pile of lies. They are so pretty.
Mother Teresa a Saint of the Church liked seeing poor people stay poor. They were easier to convert.
The Church is nothing like what people imagine.
M Simon, what is the basis for your claim the she liked seeing the poor remain poor.
David A,
Mother Theresa was not a nice person. Read the following to get past the catholic propaganda about her:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/
I met Mother Teresa.
I found her to be direct, honest, potent, insightful, and VERY austere. It is true that Mother Teresa liked keeping the children in the community of their birth. She did not see how the children would benefit from being taken from their homes and thrust into a world of materialism and excess, when the objective was to save their souls and their lives.. She said that. She never believed that you had to be a wealthy person to have value.
It is much worse to have a poverty of heart and possess spite that to have no money.
Many people are poor. Worse, a few people would libel a good person for their own fleeting pleasure.
I wonder what good things her critics have done for the poor? They must have been fantastic, beyond reproach. I’d love to know.
Here is a link to Mother Teresa’s Beatification site.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/teresa/Sainthood.asp
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article115.htm
Here is a quote from her regarding the poor.
Understanding the poor: Rich people, well-to-do people, very often don’t really know who the poor are; and that is why they can’t forgive, for knowledge can only lead to love, and love to service. And so, if they are not touched by them, it’s because they do not know them… The other day I dreamed I was at the gates of heaven. And St. Peter said, “Go back to earth. There are no slums up here”… Nakedness is not only for a piece of cloth, but nakedness is a loss of dignity, human dignity: The loss of what is beautiful, what is pure, what is chaste, what is virgin. Loss, homelessness is not only for a house made of bricks – homelessness is being that people are completely forgotten, rejected, left alone, as if they are nobody to nobody.
When asked what would happen if there were no more poor, Mother Teresa replied “I would be out of a job.” She did not want people to remain poor. She probably did want people to be humble, because then they are more likely to do good.
The Vatican views on scientific matters are almost entirely captured by European academia. Don’t hold your breath.
Why don’t they refer to the NYC Ballet as Koch Bros. funded?
When the “Koch Bros.” became an item on climate blogs a few years ago I took a time-out and investigated.
The Koch companies employ many people and contribute in many ways to the communities where they are. This is a big organization and the many on the receiving end know what is going on.
The Koch Foundations have provided millions of dollars to arts, medicine, and other social needs. Maybe I should say many millions of dollars – I doubt anyone knows how much but I followed many links to things supported.
The piddling $25,000 given to Heartland seems like pennies found under a car seat by comparison.
That Jeffrey Sachs should bring up this small donation in light of the many millions I mention above is indicative of his lost (?) sense of perspective. He wrote for the magazine Scientific American, and is one of the reasons that magazine no longer comes to my house on a monthly basis.
Absolutely.
The science magazines that used to publish my father are now jokes. National Geographic, the worst of the lot.
And meanwhile, NDP, with its green platform, won provincial election in Alberta.
Go figure….
I am speechless.
Catastrophic.
First thing they’re doing is halting the push for Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway.
Watch how quickly Alberta can fall with a far left nutjob crowd running the show.
Alberta voters must think that the NDP can get the pipelines through when the Conservatives couldn’t. NDP is in bed with those who opposed the pipelines.
Left and right are relative. From where you sit, Ronald Reagan probably looks far left. (me ducks under desk for cover)</juvenile>
The ndp are so far left, they have to travel right for 3 hours to even get Stalin in sight.
Sachs from Earth Institute @ur momisugly Columbia University has just brought us more CRED …
swell
We should understand that this position on the science of climate change by Pope Francis is being driven by his scientific advisers, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2014/sustainable.html
These so called climate change “experts” of the Catholic Church that Pope Francis is relying on to provide him with guidance so that he can morally advise Catholics and the world, regarding good decisions for the poor and being good stewards of this planet have catastrophically failed him.
It is that group, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that has been corrupted and fails to use the scientific method as they fall in line with the ideology(s) of the UN.
Faith in the predictive power of falsified global climate models has no place in the world of science.
Observational data based on the real world benefits of increasing CO2 are overwhelming and increasing.
Potential, speculative negatives are rapidly decreasing.
Catholics and non Catholics should know that the Pope is just as capable as the rest of us on making mistakes. This is one of them. The Popes “infallibility” that Catholics believe in, would never apply to science or climate change.
Actually, this is the final declaration from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Climate Change workshop last week that has the objectionable statements:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/04/28/final_declaration_on_workshop_on_climate_change/1140356
For example:
“The world should take note that the climate summit in Paris later this year (COP21) may be the last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human- 2 induced warming below 2-degrees C, and aim to stay well below 2-degree C for safety, yet the current trajectory may well reach a devastating 4-degrees C or higher”
So now the Vatican is into the “tipping point” business but at least were smart enough not to put a specific time frame on it.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has as councilors, atheists and non-believers. They are advisers, complete with their biases and politics.
True believers have never been misled by “observational data”. Actually, that’s not fully true; the Church no longer maintains that the world is flat (Prof. Lewandowsky should comment on it with his usual clarity), but it takes time to admit that a change is needed. Is there anything like an IQ for an organization?
Sachs’ greatest contribution to humankind was to turn the former USSR over to predatory oligarchs who bled the country dry, until Putin booty his boney derriere out of Russia.