From Scripps:
Vatican Science Panel Calls Attention to the Threat of Glacial Melt
Pontifical Academy of Sciences working group of leading scientists to present report to Pope Benedict XVI
Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego
A panel of some of the world’s leading climate and glacier scientists co-chaired by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego researcher issued a report today commissioned by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences citing the moral imperative before society to properly address climate change.
The co-authors of “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” list numerous examples of glacial decline around the world and the evidence linking that decline to human-caused changes in climate and air pollution. The threat to the ways of life of people dependent upon glaciers and snow packs for water supplies compels immediate action to mitigate the effects of climate change and to adapt to what changes are happening now and are projected to happen in the future.
V. Ramanathan
“We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us,” the authors write in a declaration prefacing the report. “The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.”
Scripps Climate and Atmospheric Scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan co-chaired the working group with Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, formerly affiliated with Scripps and Lennart Bengtsson, former head of the European weather forecasting center. The group also included Nobel Laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director general of the CERN Laboratory. Among the rest of the 24 authors are Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, Wilfried Haeberli from Switzerland, Georg Kaser from Austria and Anil Kulkarni from India, considered among the world’s foremost experts on glacial change. Former Scripps Director Charles Kennel and Scripps Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Lynn Russell are also members of the working group.
“The widespread loss of snow and ice in the mountain glaciers is one of the most visible changes attributable to global climate change. The disintegration of many small glaciers in the Himalayas is most disturbing to me since this region serves as the water tower of Asia and since both the greenhouse gases and air pollutants like soot and ozone contribute to the melting,” said Ramanathan, who has been a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences since 2004.
Report authors met at the Vatican from April 2 to April 4, 2011 under the invitation of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of the pontifical academy. The report was issued by the Vatican today and will be presented to Pope Benedict XVI.
Though scientists usually refrain from proposing action, Ramanathan said the circumstances warranted advancing suggestions from the working group. The authors recommend pursuit of three measures: immediate reduction of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of concentrations of warming air pollutants such as soot, ozone, methane and hydroflurocarbons by up to 50 percent, and preparation to adapt to climate changes that society will not be able to mitigate.
Main Rongbuk Glacier on Mount Everest in 1921 and 2007. It experienced average vertical glacier loss of 101 meters (331 feet) between 1921 and 2008. Photo credits: (1921) Courtesy of Royal Geographical Society, (2007) Courtesy of Glacier Works.
The report title refers to the term coined by Crutzen to describe what is considered a new geologic epoch that began when the impacts of mankind on the planet became a major factor in environmental and climate changes.
“The recent changes observed in glacial behavior are due to a complex mix of causal factors that include greenhouse gas forcing together with large scale emissions of dark soot particles and dust in ‘brown clouds’, and the associated changes in regional atmospheric energy and moisture content, all of which result in significant warming at higher altitudes, not least in the Himalayas,” the authors write.
“Changes of mountain glaciers all around the world are rapid and impacts are expected to be detrimental, particularly in the high mountains of South America and Asia,” said Kaser, of the Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics at the University of Innsbruck. “Yet, our understanding about glacier changes in these regions is still limited and ambitious and joint efforts are required to respond to these problems. With its report, the pontifical academy contributes considerably to raising awareness.”
“Glaciers are one of our most visible evidences of global climate change,” added Thompson. “They integrate many climate variables in the Earth system. Their loss is readily apparent and they have no political agenda. Glaciers remind us of the stunning beauty of nature and in turn the urgency of doing everything in our power to protect it.”
The authors conclude: “We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communi¬ties and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.”
# # #
I was raised Catholic and fought it tooth and toenail. First, I wanted a glow in the dark rosary for my first communion. And actually got one. Then, I discovered that I had to confess my sins, which at age 7, I had not idea what they were, so I made them up. At the age of 12 I was told that I would have to go through Confirmation. Which to me meant kissing some old guy’s finger and letting him slap me on the cheek. I told my grandmother that I would kick him in the balls if he so much as touched me and I was not going to kiss a finger, not even if it was Jesus’ finger. I was the only redheaded Irish girl allowed to go through Confirmation without the humilation of said finger kissing and cheek slapping.
At the ripe old age of 20-something, I was ex-communicated. Can’t remember what bratty thing I said to the priest during donut hour, but he ex-communicated me on the spot.
Here’s something from The Atlantic, April 2011:
The Father, The Sun, and the Holy Spirit: Pope Benedict plans a greener Vatican. By Stephan Faris
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/the-father-the-sun-and-the-holy-spirit/8405/
If the Vatican wants to go down the path of political lobbying then they better be prepared to lose their charitable tax status. Greenpeace have just lost theirs on appeal in the New Zealand courts. Good job too I might add:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/74799/greenpeace-loses-legal-fight-over-charity-status
Easy now, Anthony, if I sent every editor a letter when they posted filler, I’d have a booked calendar for quite some time. Don’t take it personally, I just don’t see the news value in the story. Really, it could have waited until they presented it to the Pope, and then we’d have something to read about. My editorial opinion of course, but then the comments are opened for opining, right? I’m not digging on you or Scripps, but I just don’t see what value this adds to the discussion. Now, if PBXVI were to make driving a sin you had to admit at confession, that’d be something. No hard feelings Mr. Watts, it wasn’t an attack on your editorial choice, just a comment on the original story itself. No need to write Scripps and tell them what they already know. 🙂
Pamela Gray says:
May 9, 2011 at 7:32 pm
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
Who can excommunicate?
Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.
Pamela, your parish priest had no right of excommunication, but he DID have the right to deny communion (which too few priests actually exercise, in my opinion) – and I’ve got a real good idea just what it was you said to Father O’Kelley… I don’t agree with the Church on that issue, but Father O’Kelley doesn’t have a lot of lee-way. Even in Catholicism there are “workarounds”…
As for the Catholic-bashing on this thread… I am reallly, really disappointed.
John from New Zealand says:
May 9, 2011 at 7:35 pm
If the Vatican wants to go down the path of political lobbying then they better be prepared to lose their charitable tax status. Greenpeace have just lost theirs on appeal in the New Zealand courts.
John from New Zealand,
If you would like me to, I can crush the puny rationale for censoring opinions you don’t like. Losing your charitable tax status over political activity is an absurd farce of democracy and I am sorry to hear about your country’s first step towards autocracy. I can, however, refer you to a great quote that may help you understand why charitable organizations should be allowed to conduct political activities:
An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment — Justice Hugo Black in NY Times Company v. Sullivan
There are too many wrong facts in that report, and the worrying thing is that Herrs Haberli and Kaser are perfectly aware of the wrong claims, yet they chose to ignore any evidence against heir unsupported thesis
They say:
“but the pace of retreat has been much faster since the 1980s”
This is patently untrue. See the cyclical fluctuation of Swiss glaciers compiled by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology here:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/lengthvariation.html
Or the variation in length for some of the bigger glaciers in the Alps during the last 3000 years:
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2005_Holzhauser_et_al.pdf
or the Alps with less ice in the recent past:
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/11/3/255.short
etc., etc.
I wonder what is the point of such a biased report with so much evidence against it and so readily available.
You have a wise policy on your blog not to allow religious discussion. I appreciate that and understand why this must be strictly upheld.
WUWT is a science blog. And if the Catholic church sticks its nose in scientific matters, then skeptical commenters in this blog are entitled to rub that nose on the floor.
The Catholic church sponsors a ‘scientific’ study that embraces CAGW mantra. Why should that be above criticism? Why should people not be allowed to examine the record of Big Religion and express dissent against them here?
I would hope that you could be more considerate of your ardent Catholic fans – me for instance – who are global warming skeptics and love your blog. Could you cut back a little on the Catholic bashing that seems to creep into your blog at a fairly constant rate?
Well, how about CAGW skeptics, like yours truly, who also love this blog but happen to be a member of the community of Green/socialist/left/liberal/commie/government conspirators?
Our progressive moral and political beliefs get a beating all the time here in the comments pages from right-wing nutters, sometimes even in the main post. You don’t see us whinging and whining in chorus about it.
I am happy that in its political tone WUWT somehow manages to strike the right balance. Gods know progressive politics deserve more criticism for being the first to embrace this ‘scientific’ global warming religion.
Anyone following suit must also be showcased for criticism, even if they are men of god, or gods themselves.
Both the religion of the ideological environment movement (RIEM) and the religion of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) have two central unresolved problems that reduce their effectiveness significantly.
The first is the problem of permanently indoctrinating existing generations of children and sub-adults with original sin. With more open society occurring, this battle is being lost by both religions.
The second problem (and the most difficult one) is the need to constantly postpone the parousia. In the RCC’s case Christ’s second coming has been much delayed compared to the expectation of the first and second century Christians and the delay had to be bureaucratically institutionalized . . . . greatly weakening its spiritual effectiveness for the masses. In the RIEM case the delay of catastrophic AGW occurrences is continuously occurring . . . . the masses are losing faith (and therefore their strength to argue). In either case, Roman Catholic Church and RIEM, reality is not supportive of their parousia.
Although I am not religious, this is not per se an attack on either religion. It is just comparative analysis.
I find the history of religion and the history of science to be the key in highlighting the two major protagonists in Western Civilization. The struggle continues.
John
Surface elevation changes of Rongbuk glaciers
During the 33-year period
of 1974-2006：
elevation decreased 16.07 m,
annual 0.49 m.
http://calit2-web02.ucsd.edu/ssi/images/GWI/IceSnowWaterWorkshop/xu5.09.pdf
page 10
______________________
Suggesting that 85m were lost from 1921 to 1975.
I wonder if David Breashears has a photo from the 1980`s when he was first there.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/tracking_the_himalayas_melting_glaciers/2295/
The Catholic church sponsors a ‘scientific’ study that embraces CAGW mantra. Why should that be above criticism?
Oh, that explains all the hoo-hah about Galileo, inquisitions, Constantine, indulgences, and sundry other irrelevant and (since they are based on models of history, not historical facts) inaccurate asides.
The Church did not “sponsor” the study. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences did. The Curia is always asking for secular advice on secular matters, such as science. The problem is that a great many scientists, experts in their field, believe in the models of climate, not climatic facts.
I find the history of religion and the history of science to be the key in highlighting the two major protagonists in Western Civilization. The struggle continues.
Oh, no! Not that hoary old chestnut of model-based history! A hundred years after professional historians shook loose from Draper’s bit of tendentious propaganda. Oh, well. The model says this must be happening; therefore, it must be happening.
sHx says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:39 am….
You, too, are right to complain if your beliefs are unfairly maligned in the way Catholicism has been in this thread, or any other thread on the internet.
Helen Hawkins’ criticism is also valid in that we don’t condemn democracy because fools are elected, nor science because charlatans are funded. Likewise, a religion is not to be condemned because it’s practicioners are less than perfect at times. If there is to be a debate about religion it should be at a different venue.
Moreover, criticisms of the Church on this topic should be limited to what the Church has said about “Climate Change”. The Vatican (Church) has said nothing about CAGW, yet.
“”””” David Falkner says:
May 9, 2011 at 10:09 pm
John from New Zealand says:
May 9, 2011 at 7:35 pm
If the Vatican wants to go down the path of political lobbying then they better be prepared to lose their charitable tax status. Greenpeace have just lost theirs on appeal in the New Zealand courts.
John from New Zealand,
If you would like me to, I can crush the puny rationale for censoring opinions you don’t like. Losing your charitable tax status over political activity is an absurd farce of democracy and I am sorry to hear about your country’s first step towards autocracy. I can, however, refer you to a great quote that may help you understand why charitable organizations should be allowed to conduct political activities:
An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment — Justice Hugo Black in NY Times Company v. Sullivan “””””
Well David, that seems to be a strange position to take. Are you not yourself seeking to suppress John’s “free speech” ?
As for the Status of Greenpeace; about which I take no position; I don’t see where anybody has interfered with their right of free speech. I’m sure that in New Zeland, they enjoy every bit as much free speech opportunity as say, in the USA, where in fact that is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
As near as I can tell, the people of New Zealand have simply said (with their own free speech processes, that the tax paying public of New Zealand simply doen’t want to have to foot the bill to fund the antics of Greenpeace, who still are free to speak their mind.
I’m not going to pay for Greenpeace world cruise travelling; just as I am not going to pay for the Cousteaus to harass sharks by killing fish for them, to get dramatic footage of frenzied shark feeding to entice gullible Americans to pay for their recreational hobbies.
I’d like somebody to pay for me to go out and have a good time in remote areas. But I don’t mind them doing it; so long as they can afford it, and they don’t mess those places up too much, with all their poking around.
Ye Olde Statistician has pwned the lot of the anti-Catholic bigots in this combox. Fun to watch!
George E. Smith says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:38 am
Well David, that seems to be a strange position to take. Are you not yourself seeking to suppress John’s “free speech” ?
I’m afraid I don’t follow. How would I be suppressing John’s free speech here? Because I think Greenpeace should be allowed to be politically active? Tax exemptions are not payments. The taxpayers of New Zealand do not pay anything for Greenpeace activities unless they willingly contribute. The government simply does not tax them. That is not a subsidy because it is not an action, it is a lack of action.
They are, essentially, being punished for having their political opinion as far as I can tell from what John has said. Now, if they have broken some laws or whatnot, I can’t tell. I will say that idiots who want to tax charitable organizations for the crime of having a political opinion should stay in New Zealand.
As far as Greenpeace goes, I’m rooting for Japan.
“””””Scripps Institution of Oceanography said, “A panel of some of the world’s leading climate and glacier scientists co-chaired by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego researcher issued a report today commissioned by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences citing the moral imperative before society to properly address climate change.” “”””””
——-
If Scripps’ statement is correct about the Vatican’s reason for commissioning the study, the theology supporting the Vatican’s moral stance is open for our discussion. They opened the door. : )
Criticize the RCC and Scripps for opening the door on theology and morals, not the commenters for engaging.
John
It may come as a shock to Vatican scientists or other glacier melting alarmists, that glaciers are supposed to melt during Interglacial Warmup Periods. We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year old Interglacial, and not all glaciers are melting. In that there are glaciers that are growing should lend credence to the inevitability that we are exiting the present Interglacial and are beginning the next Ice Age.
It matters not what the Arctic Ice Cap does in the last 6 years, or how many glaciers here or there are melting. The only thing that matters is: what is the change in the Mass Balance of the entire world inventory of ice. The answer is: there is not much change at all! So, what’s the problem?
John Whitman says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“””””Scripps Institution of Oceanography said, “A panel of some of the world’s leading climate and glacier scientists co-chaired by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego researcher issued a report today commissioned by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences citing the moral imperative before society to properly address climate change.” “”””””
——-
If Scripps’ statement is correct about the Vatican’s reason for commissioning the study, the theology supporting the Vatican’s moral stance is open for our discussion. They opened the door. : )
Criticize the RCC and Scripps for opening the door on theology and morals, not the commenters for engaging.
——————-
As yet the Scripps Institution does not speak for the Church or the Pope.
David Falkner
Greenpeace & the Catholic Church are free to say what they like. A removal of Greenpeace’s charitable status is not a punishment, but a legal acknowledgement that their actions do not warrant such a status. If a change in their tax status is a result of their actions then that is something they bring upon themselves. Is there a reason why they should be allowed to continue to use charitable tax exemption if they have been judged legally ineligible by the New Zealand High Court?
If my tax status changes as a result of something I do (or say) that is something I weigh up before I do it, & is why I employ an accountant. No need to get angry I just follow the tax laws not make or enforce them, and if Greenpeace have to follow them like me & everyone else I think that’s fair enough. Greenpeace are free to say what they like, but not under the guise of a charity when they’ve exhibited themselves for all the world to see as a political advocacy group.
Boy Oh boy. Just mention the word ‘Vatican’ and out come all the anti-Catholic/anti-religious folks who seem to react to the word in the same way that Pavlov’s dogs reacted to the sound of the bells. Hey, folks, let’s not bother with facts; let’s just keep to our ill-informed prejudices. That makes life so much simpler.
However, some people might actually be interested in a few facts. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is NOT the Vatican. It is not even made up entirely of Catholics. This is what Wikipedia says;
“The new members of the Academy are elected by the body of Academicians and chosen from men and women of every race and religion based on the high scientific value of their activities and their high moral profile. They are then officially appointed by the Roman Pontiff. The Academy is governed by a President, appointed from its members by the Pope, who is helped by a scientific Council and by the Chancellor. Initially made up of 80 Academicians, 70 who were appointed for life.”
One of the current members of the PAC is Stephen Hawking. Now everybody knows that he’s a raving Catholic. (sarc)
Of course, all this frothing at the mouth we see from so many of the comments could have been avoided if the word Vatican had not been used. I just wonder what it is that makes people who are normally (hopefully) highly respectful of keeping to the facts engage in so much sheer tripe. As a reader of this blog who respects its high scientific values I am very disappointed in the heading for this article. As for the folks who have responded in the prejudiced way that they have I would just say that it might be an idea to check facts before sounding off.
polistra says:
May 9, 2011 at 7:30 am
Not especially new. Rome, along with all the other mainstream religions, switched from Jehovah to Gaia about 10 years ago…….
____________
If by Rome you mean the Catholic Church could you please provide evidence of the switch. Apparently you’ve known about this for some time.
Making that sort of statement, without evidence, seems a little like me saying you became a wiccan 10 years ago, ( I don’t know you). Except it’s less serious because you’re far less important than the Catholic Church.
So, are you a wiccan?
John From New Zealand says:
May 10, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Is there a reason why they should be allowed to continue to use charitable tax exemption if they have been judged legally ineligible by the New Zealand High Court?
No there is not. But I don’t have the whole story, so I can’t make a judgment on Greenpeace. The assertion you made, that I take umbrage with is:
If the Vatican wants to go down the path of political lobbying then they better be prepared to lose their charitable tax status.
This implies that the law in New Zealand does not allow a charitable organization to lobby for political changes. That is an absurd restriction. It does depend on what New Zealand law defines as political lobbying, and if there is a limitation on the amount of lobbying (which would be totally acceptable) but I am just as happy to point out that using that as leverage to silence the opinions of charitable groups only injures the discourse of your society in New Zealand.
Greenpeace are free to say what they like, but not under the guise of a charity when they’ve exhibited themselves for all the world to see as a political advocacy group.
This is the part I have no problem with. My point is that you think the Vatican should lose their tax status for receiving a report from scientists accredited in their field. Also, the entire Catholic Church advocates. It is a primary purpose. Bring that suit and see if you win. That is your only reasonable course of action.
David Faulkner
If the Catholic Church (which claims to be a religious organisation in the service of God), were to promote the theory of AGW (which has nothing to do with their religion) as part of church policy, then their status is no longer purely religious. What connection is there between the Catholic faith & AGW? None. Commissioning a report doesn’t cross the line, but promotion of AGW does. If Greenpeace, which is an environmental group, can’t defend their status, the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) haven’t got a hope in hell.
John from New Zealand
The CC already advocates everywhere against euthanasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, legalization of drugs, divorce, artificial insemination, embryonic stem-cell research, birth control, and more. How does adding AGW factor into your feelings one way or another?
It would have been most interesting if the report, of this commission, had formed the opposite opinion. Would the Pope been hailed as a hero (even before he read it), or would the above “complementary” comments continue?