Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Pope Francis advocates the global warming agenda of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the help of the Obama White House. Apparently, he doesn’t know their ultimate objective of reducing and controlling population generally contradicts Catholic doctrine. The irony is that as a Jesuit, the ideological church police, he should know, but apparently, his personal, political and economic perspective trumps it. He also doesn’t appear to know that population control comes naturally with industrial and economic development.
Coercion of the Pope to the global warming message likely began with John Kerry’s visit to the Vatican, ostensibly to discuss Middle East issues. The Boston Globe researched Kerry during his Presidential run and discovered that,
The Kerry family was traced back to a small town in the Austrian empire, now part of the Czech Republic. There, the paper discovered that before immigrating to America, the Kerrys changed their name from Kohn and converted from Judaism to Catholicism.
His Catholicism caused him much political trouble during his presidential campaign. Now the Obama administration has taken the next step, which is standard in the entire development of the IPCC climate campaign, by involving the top bureaucrat of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters that her aim in visiting was to show the Vatican how aligned President Barack Obama and Francis are on climate change. She said she wanted to stress that global warming isn’t just an environmental issue, but a public health threat, and yet also a chance for economic opportunity.
The last comment parallels the political objective identified by Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart, who said,
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
These objectives appeal to a man familiar with the slums and poverty of Argentina. The problem is the more likely objective is to eliminate the people in them. Consider Prince Philip’s quote;
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
I recommend the list begin with monarchs.
Religious and political analogies abound between environmentalism and its subset, global warming. Former Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, who gave the keynote address at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York, warned about the growing trend.
Nevertheless, there is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism, which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming.
Figure 1 shows how, as usual, cartoonists see the trend ahead of most and are able to comment without fear, until recently.
Figure 1
I wrote about similar parallels between religion and global warming by comparing Al Gore to the Pardoner, in Chaucer’s (c.1342 – 1400) The Canterbury Tales. Gore pushed carbon credits like The Pardoner pushed indulgences or pardons, hence his name. Here is Paul Johnson’s description of the Pardoner.
“The Pardoner, a seller of indulgences, is a complete and shameless rogue; but Chaucer, not content with exposing his impudence, shows how good he was at his job and how powerfully he preached against sinfulness. The Pardoner had also been taught to use the figure of death to scare his hearers.”
The opening lines of the Pardoner’s Tale provide the parallel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) message.
“My lords, he said, in churches where I preach
I cultivate a haughty kind of speech
And wring it out as roundly as a bell;
I’ve got it all by heart, detail I tell.
I have a text, it always is the same
And always has been since I learned the game,
Old as the hills and fresher than the grass,
Radix malorum est cupiditas.”
(“greed is the root of evils”)
The Club of Rome (COR) took the Malthusian idea that world population would outgrow food resources and expanded it to all resources. They sponsored the 1972 book Limits To Growth, which was a forerunner to the IPCC Reports approach. It used simple linear trends for population and resources to project catastrophic projections. They used computer models to create the illusion of scientific accuracy.
The argument was twofold. Pressure on resources was occurring simply by natural rates of population increase, and developed nations were using the resources at an accelerated rate. The goal was also twofold. Reduce population overall and reduce industrialization that caused the increased demand on resources.
First and foremost of the Club of Rome Neo-Malthusians was Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book, The Population Bomb, became the bible for environmentalists. It also convinced most people, even though virtually all its predictions were wrong, that the world was overpopulated. Ehrlich also co-authored a book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with the person, John Holdren, who continues the fight, but from a position of power as Obama’s Science Czar. It is entirely likely that he is pushing Obama, Kerry and the EPA among others on the climate agenda.
What were some of the views on population Holdren set out in the book?
“• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.”
Most Americans would oppose such measures, so Holdren had a solution to bypass them, using the shield of the Constitution.
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Who concluded that such laws “could be sustained”? The answer is Holdren and his cohorts. But they also control the justification for action, because Holdren decides when “the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger society”.
Holdren disavowed all these beliefs at his Senate confirmation hearings and in additional press releases, which said in part,
“This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization.”
Notice that Holdren doesn’t disavow his view on overpopulation. He only says, government shouldn’t control it, especially with forced sterilization. Clearly, he still thinks overpopulation is a problem.
In a larger sense, it doesn’t matter because major policy positions and global conferences continue with incorrect claims about overpopulation. It is central to the Principles of Agenda 21 set out in, what else, a Synthesis Report. It triggered the UN international population conference in Cairo in November 1994, with Vice President Al Gore leading the US delegation. One interesting comment about the Cairo conference, that shows some things haven’t changed, was this cryptic note.
Despite dire predictions that the conference would be the focus of attack by Islamic militants, there were no violent incidents.
Little else has changed either. Proponents of the IPCC and their anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis continue their crusade (pun intended) by inveigling the support of authority figures, like the Pope and by inference, associated groups. These are classic, appeals to authority, like Lord May’s use of the Royal Society to persuade other science societies to support the AGW cause.
Most members of the Societies didn’t know what their leaders were doing and many demanded retraction or at least restatement. Many of the parishioners are rebelling against religious involvement. A few years ago, members of the Catholic Church of Scotland, who were annoyed that their bishop had directed priests to preach against global warming, approached me. Their view was biblical,
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
The Pope apparently did not think through his commitment to the IPCC claims as expounded by the Obama White House. Likely, he was easily persuaded, because so much of the false claims fit his socialist ideology. He tried to walk back his commitment by jokingly suggesting he was not promoting population control. He said,
“Some think, excuse me if I use the word, that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits…but no,”
He later backtracked on this comment.
Wednesday, he seemed to pull back from that statement. Speaking of his recent trip to the Philippines, where he presided over the largest mass in history, he said “it gives consolation and hope to see so many numerous families who receive children as a real gift of God. They know that every child is a benediction.”
He called “simplistic” the belief that large families were the cause of poverty, blaming it instead on an unjust economic system. “We can all say that the principal cause of poverty is an economic system that has removed the person from the center, and put the god of money there instead.”
This comment appears to show further lack of understanding, created by an idée fixe.
Ironically, both the IPCC and the Pope fail to recognize the proven dynamics of the Demographic Transition. This theory basically shows that population decreases naturally when industrial economic development is allowed. The key is it must be allowed without interference from government or the church as this author explains.
As with all models, the demographic transition model has its problems. The model does not provide “guidelines” as to how long it takes a country to get from Stage I to III. Western European countries took centuries though some rapidly developing countries like the Economic Tigers are transforming in mere decades. The model also does not predict that all countries will reach Stage III and have stable low birth and death rates. There are factors such as religion that keep some countries’ birth rate from dropping.
The good news is, most Catholics are not listening. In Catholic countries, the population rate has declined considerably. Reportedly, the best measure is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the expected number of children born per woman in her child-bearing years.
Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.
Fertility rates for four predominantly catholic countries are;
Poland – 1.41
Hungary – 1.41
Italy – 1.48
France – 1.98
But the Pope doesn’t need to worry; Italy, France, and other European nations are offsetting the decline with Muslim immigrants with higher TFRs.
Apparently, the Pope could learn from the French philosopher Montesquieu. He reportedly said, whenever he was tempted to talk about something on which he had little knowledge, he remembered his personal guideline. Never talk to other men about his wife, because they might be more knowledgeable on the subject than he was. Maybe the problem for perspective is that the Pope doesn’t have a wife.
Has the Pope explicitly said he recommends any action in climate change?
Just saying that we should care for creation isn’t controversial for the Pontiff.
So has he asked for any specific action?
The article is struggling to find guilt by association, and doesn’t succeed. It’s a hit piece, without substance.
This article is a mix of religion and politics. Difficult to do from the get-go, but even funnier on a blog about “science”
warrenlb is struggling, without substance, to criticize. Tim Ball makes some interesting observations, but as with most politico-religious ideas, they are endlessly subject to dispute. As for D Socrates, he erects the straw man that WUWT is purported to be a blog strictly about science. my impression has always been that this is Anthony’s blog and that it posts what Anthony considers interesting.
(That is right, and there is nothing stopping moderators from getting fed up with a couple of constant nay-sayers, and keeping their comments in long-term moderation. Those commenter should understand that posting is a privelege, not a right. If they cannot act as if they are guests in Anthony’s living room, there are literally millions of other blogs where they can post their views. -mod)
give us your money or you will burn in hell.
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Roman Catholic Church’s wealth impossible to calculate
It is impossible to calculate the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. In truth, the church itself likely could not answer that question, even if it wished to.
Its investments and spending are kept secret. Its real estate and art have not been properly evaluated, since the church would never sell them.
There is no doubt, however, that between the church’s priceless art, land, gold and investments across the globe, it is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth.
Since 313 A.D., when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire, its power has been in near-constant growth.
The church was able to acquire land, most notably the Papal States surrounding Rome, convert pagan temples and claim relics for itself. Over 300 years, it became one of Europe’s largest landowners.
For the next thousand years, tithes and tributes flowed in from all over Europe. Non-Christians and even fellow Christians were killed and their property confiscated. For example, the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in the early 13th century brought it gold, money and jewels.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/08/wealth-of-roman-catholic-church-impossible-to-calculate/
A friend of mine, Phillipino, in New Zealand spent time in Italy and the Vatican on holiday once. She returned disturbed at the extreme wealth the Church has accumutlated over the centuries while her fellow countrymen, women and children live in abject poverty in slums and rubbish dumps in Manila (Her home town).
I, myself, whitnessed the “wealth” of the Catholic church in Ireland, along with all the hypocricy and abuses.
the Pope wants redistribution of wealth. which is very much against catholic doctrine since redistribution of wealth is socialist/progressive/communist speak for theft.
the Catholic Church has a long history of redistribution of wealth. it takes the wealth of the poor and gives it to the church. in the name of doing good they have done very well indeed.
climate change has a great deal in common with the church. both want money to save the earth from the sins of humanity. both preach that we will burn if we don’t give.
Both are big on talking about future salvation, in return for money today. both have profited greatly. neither has demonstrated any power to actually save anyone.
GPM,
It’s just another case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. The day the Pope says he’s going to redistribute his church’s immense wealth to the poor, I will sit up straight and pay attention.
Then there is this, which may wife (Catholic) says that she personally knew of similar occurrences in the 1960’s. Of course I’m sure that large donations were made to the church for their efforts:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html
WOW!! In the category of it is worse than we thought.
Up to 300,000 Spanish babies were stolen from their parents and sold for adoption over a period of five decades, a new investigation reveals.
Mr Moreno’s ‘father’ confessed on his deathbed to having bought him as a baby from a priest in Zaragoza in northern Spain. He told his son he had been accompanied on the trip by Mr Barroso’s parents, who bought Antonio at the same time for 200,000 pesetas – a huge sum at the time.
‘That was the price of an apartment back then,’ Mr Barroso said. ‘My parents paid it in instalments over the course of ten years because they did not have enough money.’
What a relief it is to find so many people here in the West (and here at WUWT) selling all their excess (that is, excess as compared to a person who has no home, car, cell phone, golf club membership etc.) and avoiding creature comforts in order to give significant amounts of their personal proceeds to the poor. Living an austere lifestyle themselves in sacrifice for their fellow man is the proper example for the RC Church to follow. Hearing so much criticism of the Church’s wealth and the obvious solution to the problem of poverty gives me hope and a perfect example that I myself should consider once I’m back from my month long vacation to Europe. I am in awe of the critics of the Church’s wealth who are undoubtedly using library computers to post their comments after their transit ride from their modest rental apartment.
The difference being that none of them claim to represent Y’shua the Messiah on earth.
MC … they get this close, “Pontifical Academy Of Sciences Pushing For Climate Treaty…Finds Fossil Fuels Akin To “Modern Slavery”!
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.oznfvdwb.dpuf
Thanks,
That’s from Der Spiegel which isn’t traditionally pro-Church – so cauthion is required.
Even so these two comments imply that the issue is not yet set.
OK, so the Patriarch of Constantinople is concerned. as though Istanbul hasn’t other problems for the Catholocism right now.
Also,
It’s politics.
Yes, just look at the number of quotes from Pope Francis that are in the article. One, err, err, err…Any quotes on climate change? Why bother quoting the man when it’s much better inventing his views for yourself.
“Apparently, he doesn’t know their ultimate objective of reducing and controlling population generally contradicts Catholic doctrine.” Suggest replace “generally” with “fundamentally and broadly” or maybe “completely.” Thx.
The Catholic Church has a great track record on science, just check with Bruno. When Constantine formed the Roman Catholic Church in 300 AD, it ushered in nearly 800 years of massive improvement in technology of torture devices and scientific progress in numerology, astrology and alchemy.
Rome had no science. Rome was an engineering society. They made absolutely no progress on the science of the ancient Greeks – who were they schoolmasters – and their slaves.
This is not the first time that the Church has fallen into the trap of compromising with the world.It is disappointing to see a Jesuit, who are reputed to be well educated and discerning, fall for something as obvious as the climate obsession.
Maybe the goal is to undo the Original Sin of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That “Knowledge” seems to be disappearing.
It shouldn’t surprise you, Dr. Ball, that the Pope is supportive of the UN. The Pope is a Jesuit. The Jesuits have been intertwined with the Communists and globalists for years especially in Central and South America. The Jesuits have always been behind Fidel Castro as well. There is no shortage of literature on the subject. In fact, Google is your friend.
Agreed. I once had the pleasurable company of an ex- Jesuit coworker who had left the order over their leftist proclivities.. We had many enjoyable discussions about math and science and the world as it is, sometimes over games of chess, seasoned with bottles of cognac and my wife’s good cooking.
I attended Catholic high school and college in New Orleans. It is the belief of Jesuits and clergy in general that one has not the right to be wealthy, but simply comfortable, while they live in their gilded homes and eat off of gold dinnerware. I asked one of my professors (who happened to be a priest) how Catholic doctrine regarding the wealthy differed from that of Marxists, and he had no response other than to be perturbed with me for the rest of the semester.
Makes sense.
Religion + science = climate science
Kind of like chocolate + peanut-butter = Reeses peanut-butter cup. Tastes good, but of no nutritional vale.
My view:
Overwhelming evidence for Evolution, DNA, Plate Tectonics, AGW = Findings of Science
Overwhelming rejection of AGW = rejection of science = rejection of DNA, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and other findings of modern day science.
The only people I know of who “Overwhelmingly” reject OR accept all those things are rather weak-minded.
There is evidence for evolution – it is observed.
There is evidence for DNA – it is observed.
There is evidence for Plate Tectonics – it is observed.
But newsworthy AGW- we haven’t seen the tropical hotspot, the acceleration of warming post-1950 or climate models with predictive power. We haven’t go the evidence.
If you let AGW in to the science fold, just because it is studied without finding any evidence, then you really need to let Astrology, Ufology and cryptobiology in too.
But for me, not yeti.
Also, of those topics listed by warrenlib, only one has been declared “Settled Science” (implying no need for further research or research funding).
Pop quiz, match the values:
1. Rate of lunar recession.
2. Rate of separation of Atlantic continental shelves.
3. Satellite measured sea level rise.
4. Maximum ground subsidence in Jakarata.
a. 1.5″/year
b. 1″/year
c. 1/8″/year
d. 10″/year
There’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate alarm seriously. –AGF
Warren,
Would your views allow you to repost with CAGW substituted for AGW? After all, many noted “deniers” accept some level of AGW (from unmeasureable through trivial to benign).
warrenlb can have his opinion. Lots of folks have wacky opinions, like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But I note that every comment below his contradicts him in one way or another.
We have the CONSENSUS! ☺
Apparently in this, too.
Warrenlb,
Considering that “overwhelming evidence” for AGW is yet to be presented, AGW is not yet a “Finding of Science” any more than polar bear population decline is.
That unsubstantiated opinion is the basis of your view shows us you have joined the church in figure 1.
P.S. Your statement about what others believe is merely a projection of your own low standards for evidence informing belief.
SR
Dbstealey, some of your opinions are pretty wacky
dbstealey, I know it’s a joke but it’s still playing dirty.
He’s on the away turf – of course we are going to disagree.
The question is whether our disagreements are substantiated.
I think we did OK.
But having done OK on the Guardian I know that numbers of comments are not necessarily proportionate.
M Courtney,
Yes, it was a joke. But my post was substantiated, 100%. When I posted it I noticed the total consensus.
Now there’s one that proves the rule…
Robert Austin, what do we have : CAGW – AGW – GW
Al Gore, Mann, IPCC et al belong to the CAGW category, assuming Armageddon
The Pope, Obama, MSM et al belong to the AGW category
Skeptics/lukewarmers are in the GW category and they assume minor anthropogenic impact
Deniers assume zero or negligible impact and by definition not in the GW category.
It becomes a little bit more difficult nowadays due to the fact it changes to CC-climatechange
Maybe it’s necessary to standardise the definitions
JJM Gommers
February 1, 2015 at 12:33 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////
Perhaps you could try the term “Hard sceptic” instead of “denier” .The first use of the “D” word in the climate debate was to equate AGW sceptics with holocaust deniers.
As a hard sceptic, I see those adopting the Lukewarmer position making this an endless battle. The debate is winnable, but only when the hard sceptic position is adopted by far more sceptics.
I believe the reason so many sceptics hold the lukewarmer position is fear. Fear of looking foolish. “warming, but less than we thought” seems “safe” for those who fear they don’t fully understand the physics. At WUWT, this fear drives many lukewarmers to attack hard sceptics in what they believe is an effort to keep sceptics looking reasonable.
But to be a lukewarmer you have to believe unreasonable things –
– believing you can use the two stream approximation of radiative physics within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere.
– believing that the oceans are a near blackbody not a SW selective surface.
– believing the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR.
– believing incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.
– believing adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability.
– believing radiative subsidence plays no role in tropospheric vertical circulation.
The lukewarmer position is not so much a position of reason, it seems more a position of fear.
Anthropogenic Climate Change may not be a “conspiracy” designed to lead to socialism, but it has been co-opted for that purpose by the left. This is why they are so vehemently insistent that the “debate is over” and we get on to “solving the problem”.
Of course all of these solutions require “progressive” or outright socialist solutions; punitive taxation, loss of individual property rights, government imposed rationing of resources, cap and trade schemes, redistribution of wealth.
Naturalism and Conservation have undergone the political transformation to Environmentalism and then on to “Environmental Justice” which is just a quasi-religious branch of the real core of the lefts agenda the “Social Justice Movement”.
Pope Francis is only too eager to make the Catholic Church an ally in the “struggle”.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the typical lefty Marxist warmist would howl and piss and moan if a conservative religious icon stood up and told the world what it had to do, whatever it was, and they would shout that person down. Hypocrites.
The FALSE PROPHET here is a scientifically clueless foolish tool. The scary part is he is working with the most anti-Christian rabblerouser this country has ever had as an occupant of the oval office.
The grand pooba ought to think really carefully here: as temperatures drop off from low solar activity during the next few years, he will clearly be seen as either stupid, or a liar, or both, and his personal credibility and that of his church will drop off precipitiously with the temperatures.
Does the leader of one of the world’s largest religions really think God intended for humanity to be led down the destructive Agenda 21 road based on a pack of lies?
It was almost 400 years ago in 1616 when Pope Paul V visited judgement on Galileo. Just because he went against the consensus of the time. Pope Francis will find his much more educated flock of today far less amenable to any appeals to his authority in matters scientific. Well me for one.
Sorry Tim – but the “proven dynamics of the Demographic Transition” is not proven. It’s hocus pocus. Look at ancient Greece and Rome when demographic decline brought in the destruction of their empires followed by the “Dark Ages” now relabelled the “Medieval Ages”. Look at ancient Egypt when demographic decline brought in the “Dark Ages.” There are many, many examples throughout history and it has nothing to do with modernism or industrial development. Look at demographics like the way sceptics look at climate data and you will see cyclical trends. Look at demographics like an alarmist and you will see unprecedented trends.
False. Demographic Transition is a primarily an effect from mass wealth brought by the benefits of the industrial revolution fueled by free market capitalism.
The indigenous US population would stabilize by about 2040 if not for over a million immigrants we allow here every year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wm4KVpVLOE For every million we allow to come here from the third world each year – the third world produces another 10 million. https://www.numbersusa.com/
Clearly bringing 1/9 of them here every year is NOT going to solve anything and having that many is endangering the very cultural that created the wealth by supplanting it with a culture of government dependency. Instead of expecting individual resourcefulness from immigrants to the USA who came here for economic opportunity, were seeing way too many come here expecting a handout and they are producing children who want the same thing. The third world must become rich on their own by developing their own resources the same way that we did. Only then will their populations also stabilize but CAGW charlatans stand in the way of allowing that to happen.
“False. Demographic Transition is a primarily an effect from mass wealth brought by the benefits of the industrial revolution fueled by free market capitalism. ”
***********
Nothing that you’ve said following the first paragraph supports your first paragraph. Anyone can make up a theory as to why population increases and declines. You can even blame it on sunspots, weather cycles and agricultural development. Someone is bound to say its all this and everything.
islam brought on the dark ages. check the dates of the dark ages. coincides with the muslim advance, the barbarians actually took to the civilization of the Romans and preceded the dark ages and the muslim expansion..
Actually the dark ages is generally attributed to what followed the fall of Western Rome. The great flowering of the sciences occurred in Muslim Spain with development in medicine, mathematics, astronomy and many other sciences. Western medicine has been greatly influenced by these developments. Many medical instruments and diagnoses developed there were used in Western medicine well into the 20th century. From the 13th to 15th century Muslim population in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain began to decline while European population began to increase rapidly. Much of the early sciences followed the route of Ancient Greece to Muslim controlled Spain, to Western Europe instead of Ancient Greece to Western Europe.
Golden
…… the dark ages were a direct result of muslim advance. there is lots of recent archeological evidence as well as the Jungers Layer in the Mediterranean. Up to that point there was still a spice route available to europeans as well as law and civilization (not the same as the height of the Roman empire but still in the same context). After the encroachment of islam then history stops. no construction no books (the muslims burned all the books they came across save one). In fact you can not show any new construction following the invasion of the muslims in archeological history (with the exception of a sad mosque in Spain), but you can find Roman style architecture right up to that time.
it wasn’t safe on the mediterranean sea until the 1800s due to the barbary pirates. That is when the USA sent the Marines in to pacify the mediterranean.
climate science isn’t the only fraud being foisted on us by the elitists.
Inventions of the “dark ages”: the heavy plough, horse collar, horse shoes, tidal mills, the wine press, the hourglass, artesian wells, the blast furnace, the chimney, distilled liquor, the rib vault, spectacles, the treadwheel crane, the mechanical clock, oil paint, the spinning wheel, the vertical windmill, the water hammer… ‘t Dark Ages were so dark, even the light bits were dark!
Nothing in science can ever be “proven” in the strict sense. In the vernacular however, something that has been repeatedly demonstrated to work is “proven” to work. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that industrialization leads to wealth and wealth leads to decreasing birth rates.
This is quite an unexpected result, because in animal populations, increasing wealth (more food) leads to increased birth rates. This suggests that it is not strictly wealth that leads to decreasing birth rates, but something that comes about as a result of wealth, such as education and mechanization.
John Maynard Keynes was absolutely right … until he was absolutely wrong because Milton Friedman was absolutely right. Too bad Milton Friedman was not absolutely right long enough for most of the younger generations to get to know his name because it seems like Keynes could be right again. So it is with the “Demographic Transition.” It is a micro study that explains as much as needed to satisfy the need that no more study is needed until it can explain no more.
A side effect of DT is a shift in the social classes with subsequent birthrates. Education lowers the birthrate but indoctrination(religion) is doing the opposite.
The pope is a humble man. He knows what the poor live like.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/22/1374490815828/Pope-Francis-sets-off-for-008.jpg
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7294/11531599504_6f8a3f6ff0_m.jpg
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/life/welltraveled/2011/12/vatican/111202_WT_day4_museums.jpg.CROP.rectangle2-mediumsmall.jpg
In fairness, he could live there but chooses to live in an apartment instead.
Well he is supposed t be the “Last One” after all, so maybe he has decided to shape up:
don’t be fooled by the poser …he is a full blown communist.
GPM, I agree. If it walks like a duck, and has feathers, and quacks…
Still waiting for him to put a ” For Sale” sign on the Vatican.
Eamon.
I doubt any pope joined the priesthood 40+ years earlier in their careers because it was a guaranteed path to a lifestyle of palaces and private jets. It’s the office, not the man, that justifies those trappings. That’s like asking why does this Obama guy get to live in a beautiful mansion on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and gallivant around the world in a custom one-of-a-kind 747 with a really hot blue and white paint scheme? How unfair is that?
Its not uncommon that a nation, religion, foundation, association, or multi-billion dollar corporation has a really sweet headquarters for its leader of the day to occupy while in office. They don’t give it to him at retirement and build a new one for the next guy.
Pretty sure when this pope dies, in his will it’s not going to say “to my favorite nephew I bequeath my St. Peter’s basilica, and to my beloved sister I leave my Sistine Chapel.”
On a slightly different tangent (apologies to Jimbo for spelling it out here), complaining about the incalculably high value of the Vatican’s art collection forgets that it was the Catholic Church that commissioned those works in the first place. Its like asking where did Bill Gates get the money to purchase the tens of billions of dollars of Microsoft shares that he owns.
Maybe it does here and there, but I’m willing to bet that the church generally is not running around with an open checkbook buying outrageously expensive works of art (or basilicas and cathedrals) just to improve its collection’s worth. I think its yet to raise its paddle at auction to snatch up any Warhols, Hirsts, or Lichtensteins.
Rather it keeps the great majority of all these priceless pieces of art it owns accessible for anyone to see (yeah, yeah, for the price of an admission ticket). If Michelangelo’s Pieta was privately owned, it’d be sitting in the lobby of Donald Trump’s “Trump Vatican City” only to be seen by people he wants to impress or are rich enough to be able to afford the price of admission.
Though my real point is that a Trump couldn’t buy the Pieta in the first place because it wouldn’t exist had the church not commissioned it. Its not the Vatican’s fault that it commissioned a piece of marble from a starving artist that after four hundred came to be seen as beyond value.
(Though I will concede that the church, at least in the US, can pay ridiculous sums of money for new art and architecture it commissions today. From the Wikipedia article of the LA cathedral Roger Cardinal Mahony had built:
“$5 million was budgeted for the altar, the main bronze doors cost $3 million, $2 million was budgeted for the wooden ambo (lectern) and $1 million for the tabernacle. $1 million was budgeted for the cathedra (bishop’s chair), $250,000 for the presider’s chair, $250,000 for each deacon’s chair, and $150,000 for each visiting bishops’ chair, while pews cost an average of $50,000 each. The cantor’s stand cost $100,000 while each bronze chandelier/speaker cost $150,000.[12] The great costs incurred in its construction and Mahony’s long efforts to get it built led critics to dub it the “Taj Mahony”[13] and the “Rog Mahal”.[14]”
And the building’s double-butt-ugly to boot. How Cardinal Rog was able to drive around town, seeing all the poor on LA’s streets, and spent what he spent with a clear conscience is beyond me.)
Rock bottom
Now we know that if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming.
This article is the silliest I’ve seen in a while
/jan
I agree,
Agreed.
Not so silly to me. Of course I went to school as an engineer and do not espouse science for science sake and may it be of no use to anyone. Apparently you wish politics to trump science.
TRB,
If you’ve notivced in the comments over the past couple months, the MMGW scare is all politics to some folks.
What would you expect from a bunch of mindless Communist zombies, DB? The cure for cancer?
One wonders whether these three are in the same office. Sorry Jan but rock bottom is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/time-magazines-jeffrey-kluger-writes-what-might-possibly-be-the-stupidest-article-about-climate-ever-climate-change-causes-volcanoes/
Jan / David / warrenlb: Oh, look, the three Kool-Aid kids are here!
The Pope is supposedly influential among his group, so what he says would have some bearing on the actions and beliefs of those followers. So, to this extent, what he says is important. However, as shown by historical pronouncements, the Pope’s scientific views and accuracy are rarely in agreement.
You perhaps read the article with a preconceived idea of what it would say and so that is what you ‘saw’ when you read it.
The article said that the Agenda 21/Club of Rome approach is one based on the ideas of Malthus, the world is overpopulated and is consuming finite resources. Therefore, to avoid catastrophe the consumption must be reduced and the ways espoused include among others forcible abortion and sterilization.
Even the most atheist of readers will be aware that even contraception is not allowed in the Catholic church, which are more ‘go forth and multiply’ and that children are a blessing from God. So forcible abortion and sterilization due to population levels, is contrary to the accepted teachings of the Catholic church.
The Pope therefore appears to have taken a rather contradictory position. This was demonstrated by the article.
Note I have not mentioned anywhere in this response global warming anthropogenic or not. So your claim that the article said “if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming” is a strawman argument as that was not what was written. It was more that you cannot take the Malthusian misanthropic approach to curing global warming at the same time as professing Catholicism.
Dr. Ball makes some good points, but I agree that “Goes Against Traditional Catholic Doctrine” is not a persuasive reason for opposing AGW.
It is certainly not as though the Catholic clergy have a good record, now or in the past, of getting the science right.
Historically speaking, you’d probably have a batting percentage on science questions that is better than the popes, if you ALWAYS took the opposite position.
Well, how about, then, “AGW is a load of bollocks.” ? I was a Catholic up to a couple of days ago. Either the Pope goes or I go … I went … I won’t be the only one.
Big Bang Theory: Fr Georges Lemaître.
Fr De Grassi argued that comets were outside the atmosphere; Galileo argued they were atmospheric phenomena.
Albert of Saxony (c. 1320–1390) – German bishop known for his contributions to logic and physics; with Buridan he helped develop the theory that was a precursor to the modern theory of inertia.
Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294) – Franciscan friar who made significant contributions to mathematics and optics and has been described as a forerunner of modern scientific method.
Anselmus de Boodt (1550–1632) – Canon who was one of the founders of mineralogy.
Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) – French priest, astronomer, and mathematician who published the first data on the transit of Mercury.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) –Renaissance astronomer and canon famous for his heliocentric cosmology that set in motion the Copernican Revolution.
Etc, etc, etc…
I thought if you want to be a good catholic, you do as the Pope says. It’s if you want to be a good Scientist, you will not have a ”belief” in CAGW.
Eamon.
Why is it that some people seem to be determined to prominently display their ignorance about things Catholic. Please, Mr Butler, go away and read some book about what the Catholic Church actually teaches and then make some informed comment.
Perhaps he needs to get cardinal pell to give him a broader perspective and listen to the lecture below
http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=7939
Exactly. As a Jesuit ‘product’ of a 12 year education it is beyond me that the Pope appears to lack the academic backbone to apply rigour to belief.
Warmunists like Dope Francis pick and choose which tenets of the Globaloney Change religion to believe in and champion, regardless of how convoluted and self-contradictory those tenets are. His schtick is anti-capitalism, with a soupson of misplaced environmentalism. He makes for a very useful idiot for “The Cause”.
As a Catholic, the Pope’s path has become worrisome. I agree with Dr. Tim Ball.
I do not consider myself to be a good Catholic. I do have an extensive Catholic education. I also have a lifetime of working in Science and Engineering searching for the truth of how it works. Any reasonable and honest assessment of the speculated science of anthropogenic global warming show it to be so small, that if it exists at all, it is a micro minor player in whatever the future climate will be.
Spending billions on a non existent problem is sin when people are starving or sick with no treatment as resources are wasted to prevent nothing. It extreme mortal sin to do this knowingly.
So as Jan said above.
“Now we know that if you want to be a good catholic you cannot believe in anthropogenic global warming.”
As defined by very generic Catholic Doctrine. IMHO.
Golden – “demographic decline dynamics not proven”.
Sorry, but the examples you cite prove it works – of course it’s cyclical, nations emerge, get prosperous, birth rates decline, health improves, and a smaller young population is burdened with a larger older one, making them vulnerable to poorer but more dynamic nations or sub-populations that are growing. Plenty of examples of that, both in history and today, just not a lot of examples of how to get past the problem. Good example from history – how about the British who had to hire Hessian mercenaries during the American revolution, to fight the dynamically growing and younger population of the colonies. Now we hire Blackwater to fight our battles.
Taylor
What exactly were the industrial developments in ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt that caused the decline in birthrates and the destruction of their empires?
Why assume that industrialization was the cause? Demographics is not industrialization.
Wealthy people do not need lots of children to help out with work around the house and farm. They can buy slaves for that purpose. Poor people have no option. They cannot hire their help, they must grow it.
ferdberple said:
Why assume that industrialization was the cause? Demographics is not industrialization.
******
That is not my assumption. Industrialization is part and parcel of the DT as referred to by Tim Ball and the article that he linked to. Also according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
“Demographic transition (DT) refers to the transition from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country develops from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economic system. ”
As I said in my reply to you above, its micro study in my books.
By the way ferdberple – take away the bit about industrialization and the same explanation has been around since at least the mid 19th century, so there’s nothing new about DT except the industrialization part and the modern need for mathematical formulation and grafix.
Another by the way ferdberple – enjoy many of your posts.
I have already explained that it is wealth, not industrialization that reduces the birth rates. The surprise is that this happens, because in animal populations increased wealth leads to increased birth rates. Which suggests that it is not wealth, but something that springs from wealth in human populations but not in animal populations that is the true cause of the reduced birth rates.
However, the point is that Malthusian Theory of Population is fundamentally flawed when applied to humans. Industrialization is irrelevant, except as a source of wealth.
This reads like science fiction, unfortunately when I look around, I recognize it in the world we live in. Quite sad.
While some commentators may not care for Dr. Balls analysis for religious reasons, I think he has done a fine job of showing how these two groups (Catholic, IPCC) are willing to forgive each other certain fundamental differences in their struggle for relevance and power. Of the two it seems the Pope has been a touch less cautious than he ought to have in his rush to endorse the IPCC’s socialist goals.
Well, after all, he is not a “Climate Scientist”!
… so his opinions can be safely disregarded.
And if he were a Climate Scientist™?
In getting involved with AGW and political issues, the Pope appears to have forgotten that famous admonishment — “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” What kind of Pope is that?
a communist one
What kind of an exegesis of that verse could possibly lead anyone to draw the conclusion that Christians should totally ignore what’s going on in the world? Of course, the Reformation doctrine of individual interpretation of the Bible has lead to some very strange interpretations. 33,000 Protestant denominations and counting. Take your pick. There’s bound to be one out there that agrees with you.
What’s strange for a Catholic is that Pope Pius XII is, quite wrongly, accused of aiding and abetting the Holocaust by not speaking out against it while Pope Francis is, apparently, criticised for speaking out on a “political” matter. Seems like with some people the Catholic Church can’t win.
this Pope is a communist. a one world proponent and a redistribution advocate. and yes he is actively contradicting Catholic doctrine.
Hidden agendas and mass deception have become the preferred method of governance in the “brave new world”. As religion is among the oldest forms of governance, these tactics have been employed successfully for centuries to control the commoners. The first thing we teach our children is respect of authority and adherence to it, without dissent. Those of authority therefore determine through consensus what is truth in the collective mind of the populace and disseminate it through the media they control. Education becomes mere programming, with the bourgeois discouraged from pursuing higher thought and punished for skepticism of established dogma.
IMHO, it is this which presently threatens the future of Humanity more than anything else
Sounds like “Common Core” doesn’t it?
“…the Kerrys changed their name from Kohn and converted from Judaism to Catholicism.”
Which means, in birthright according to Torah Law, Kerry holds the rank of kohen (כֹּהֵן, high priest), a right which was conferred on the first kohen Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his sons as an everlasting covenant. Exodus 28:1-4
BTW, in case of any dispute over this alleged priestly lineage, the DNA haplotype of the Kohen line has been identified and can be verified. The haplotype does appear to have existed since biblical times, surviving even the splitting of the Jewish genealogy among the Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
I haven’t checked the linage you bring up.
But perhaps you should look at the the sons of Eli.
A person’s linage from his fathers does not guarantee his relationship with the Father.
BTW Aaron was of the line of Kohen but not all of Kohen were high priest.
Either way, Kerry has never spoken for God. Ketchup, maybe, but not God.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. From my experiences loony leftist Catholics are amongst the best pavers of that road.
This guy is no Pope John Paul II.or Pope John23rd.
Incidentally, I was raised a Catholic.
Tony – the hapless Canadian Envirominister hasn’t been in office for 15 years…
Note the author of the article/opinion piece…
I think we can safely ignore anyone who believes that parthenogenesis in humans is real.
RTB
I don’t agree that we can safely ignore them. There’s a lot of them.
On a lot of issues that we have to address together peculiar notions concerning the origins of the universe, life, moral codes and so on don’t interfere, but there are plenty of instances where political stances are strongly influenced by religious belief. We’ve been seeing some of that in the news lately!
You’re probably right.
Well, as a one off that is specifically designated as being outside the bounds of normal experience – we can’t. Not that it can be proven, therefore, just that such singular events cannot be proven never to have happened. The rules of induction do not apply.
If parthenogenesis in humans was considered to be an everyday occurrence then the evidence would call for a more sceptical response.
Anyway, the church is huge. It is not wise to ignore it.
RTB,
No one believes that parthenogenesis has any relationship to Jesus, as that would make his birth accidental. Strawman arguments reveal desperation.
SR
Parthenogenesis also only produces females. Another reason for irrelevancy to Jesus.
SR
What about transubstantiation?
It’s very odd that so many climate sceptics (I would also describe myself as such) will happily question shakey scientific hypotheses yet except that a bread wafer and a cup of cheap red wine can turn into the ACTUAL flesh and blood of a bronze age middle-eastern tribesman. And do so without a sceptical thought in their heads. Mind boggling!
I’m not desperate to prove or disprove anything, people have a right to believe in whatever they want and I have a right to challenge them about it. In fact I’m sure we share a lot of common disbeliefs, Zeus, Wotan, Thor etc etc so you’re heading in the right direction ☺
The Catholic Church’s hierarchy is often politically motivated. Politics is the real basis for CAGW alarmism. We should counter CAGW with scientific evidence.
Opposing the Pope’s religion, or atheism verses Christianity, is a separate topic irrelevant to CAGW alarmism.
SR
No. It is up to the CAGW Alarmists to provide the PROOF of AGW.
They have not because they cannot. The GHG Theory is a hypothesis that has not been proven empirically.
Before the Colombian Exchange and Industrial Revolution climate change was the principal population control, followed by plague and war. Leptis Magna supplied the wheat and olives for the Roman dole. Global cooling wiped it out, along with most of the population of North Africa. The LIA was destructive enough for Europe and China, but would have been worse without Andean potatoes. Climate change is still lethal to cultures that don’t benefit from fossil fuels, whether it’s freeze or drought, though in recent decades drought has been the killer. North Africa has been drying up for thousands of years, off and on, but it does much better in a warmer climate. So does Greenland.
So turn up the heat! –AGF
“… he is a full-blown communist”
Pope Francis, like many Jesuits, is very liberal-minded and has supported many liberal causes. He apparently encourage Obama to “liberate” Cuba from the U.S. embargo.
But, curiously, he has always taken a somewhat dim view of the “liberation theology” priests in South America, many of whom openly embrace communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Liberation_theology
indeed. having worked in many countries as well as several latin ones it does not surprise me. communists only go for the liberation theology if they have secumbed to it through local exposure. or it helps them locally. most countries I find are very racist in putting their people first except north america and parts of europe.
it’s not just their soccer teams they cheer.
(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
The fact that Dr. Ball has the courage to speak out about the behind the scenes machinations of the elites does not indicate a weakness of mind but rather incredible courage to speak truth to power, Elites collude, always have, always will, to believe otherwise is incredibly naive.
(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
It’s not that the moon landings were actually faked, but that the government would have been fully and immorally capable of doing it if they had decided too. That knowledge makes it all too easy to believe many of the “supposedly” loony conspiracy theories because who really knows for sure…….
You can’t help being a troll, can you?
His DNA.
They just do not understand whose side they are on. It’s weird.
One of the most important of Tim’s comments was citing Canada’s Christine Stewart, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” This recalls the IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer when he said it was not about saving the environment, but about the “de facto distribution of the world’s resources through climate policy.” It goes back to the Club of Rome’s publication, “The First Global Revolution” in 1990, in which they write about coming up with a struggle that all the disparate nations could get behind. As they said, “in need not be a real one” but only “suitable for the purpose.” Climate change was identified as one suitable for the purpose. That publication was made available at the first Rio Conference.
We can discuss the science and the numbers until we are blue in the face, but it all comes down to the political march towards global Socialism. All the IPCC intended to do was put a science-based justification on that agenda.
“Climate change” is the underlying justification for the UN’s Agenda 21.
The UN’s Agenda 21 is the Trojan horse of international collectivism.
Green is the new Red.
What they couldn’t do with tanks and guns, they now do with ‘sustainability’ and ‘regionalism.’
I think Rosa Koire’s book “Behind the Green Mask” is spot-on. Everyone should read it, and check out her videos. The woman rocks.
Anybody remember the “W.W.J.D.?” movement?
Seems like it doesn’t apply to Christian perspective as much as it used to.
Maybe it was just a fad which ran it’s course and became obsolete.
Dawtgtomis,
Relevance? Point?
SR
I guess my point is that the Pope is supposed to be more like Jesus in his actions and words then anybody on Earth. Or at least that’s what my parochial schooling impressed on me. So WWJD?
Dawtgtomis,
Now I understand. As I am not Catholic, I never associated the WWJD attitude with the Pope, since it arose within the evangelical community.
My reading of the Gospels gives me the the understanding that Jesus forgave individuals, telling them to sin no more, while telling the church hierarchy to stay out of politics and not to impose additional rules of behavior.
SR
Pope to
CatholicsClimate Funding: ‘Go forth and multiply.’The Canterbury Tales – The Pardoner’s Tale
‘Nay, nay,’ quod he, ‘than have I Cristes curs!
Lat be,’ quod he, ‘it shal nat be, so theech!
Thou woldest make me kisse thyn old breech,
And swere it were a relik of a seint,
Thogh it were with thy fundement depeint!
But by the croys which that seint Eleyne fond,
I wolde I hadde thy coillons in myn hond
In stede of relikes or of seintuarie;
Lat cutte hem of, I wol thee helpe hem carie;
Thay shul be shryned in an hogges tord.’
Is the Pope Catholic?
Well, there is some debate on that score but, on the whole, the Pope’s position on population control is less ambiguous than AGW Central’s view on it. This is largely because the AGW castle is an edifice of many chambers and we don’t have a single manifesto to examine.
Tim Ball isn’t saying the Pope’s not entitled to pipe up about AGW, he’s saying it’s ironic who he’s holding hands with.
There is plenty of evidence that many prominent players in the AGW tragicomedy have ulterior motives and clandestine agendas but I am not prepared to stick the whole orthodoxy under one tent and condemn them as misanthropic monsters all.
I will even admit to the mildest stirring of Malthusian malice while standing in line at the DMV.
Yeppers, good points, all.
Jesus said that: Ye shall know the truth…and the truth shall set you free.” I yearn for that day to come…to free mankind from the lies of these fools!
And He told Pontius Pilate, I have come to bare witness to the truth. In this respect the Pope has missed the mark entirely.
Prince Philip an environmentalist adherent ?
I don’t think so .
He dislikes and questions the need for wind turbines.
You mean Prince Charles – who has described sceptic people like me as being ‘headless chickens ‘ running around not knowing what’s going on ‘
Without denying the worm in the fruit, that apple may not have fallen far from the tree.
The desire to be reincarnated as a virus deadly to humans is imputed to Prince Philip.
Yet another Neo-Malthusian effort to redistribute and control population:
Gore: Spend $90 Trillion to Ban Cars from Every Major City in the World
I forget – how many mansions does algore own?
Gore: Spend $90 Trillion to Ban Cars
==============
Gore’s plan has already been tried. As you increase city density it pushes up real-estate prices, forcing people out to the suburbs, off transit and into their cars.
It is a self-defeating plan, because it ignores economics. Mass Transit systems work when large numbers of people want to travel predictably between limited numbers of destinations. However, when these same people want to travel randomly between a large number of destinations, you need a much larger number of smaller vehicles. The cost of drivers for such a system is prohibitive, so people must drive themselves if the system is to be affordable.
Know what I am sick of? ALL religions.
So are you going to give it up for Lent?
Why doesn’t someone send a copy of the GWPF’s latest publication “Unintended Consequences Of Climate Policies Unethical” to the Vatican?
see http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-unintended-consequences-of-climate-policies-unethical/
The Catholic Church is not however totally submerged under AGW alarmism. One of the Pope’s own cardinals George Pell, former Archbishop of Sydney, believes that a doubling of CO2 would be good for the planet because “plants would love it”
He is also quoted as having said “Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness.
“Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”
… doubling of CO2 would be good for the planet because “plants would love it” …
=====================
Quite so.
So called skeptics should stop being reactive, enriching the atmosphere is good for the environment.
What an interesting article, links and perspective. I really loved the last line!
“Never talk to other men about his wife, because they might be more knowledgeable on the subject than he was. Maybe the problem for perspective is that the Pope doesn’t have a wife.” ~Tim Ball
This goes to the heart of the matter. It is said that these monks, prelates, priests and popes are actually single so that they can be “married to the church.”
Please remember that Peter was a married man, as were all of the twelve apostles; their wives traveled with them and Thomas’ daughters were prophetesses. Mary also had a lot of children with her husband Joseph. In light of this, it is truly fascinating to study the adherence to monasticism in the Roman Church. And it is the Roman Church: it’s dogma throughout the Middle Ages was Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, Galen and Ptolemy, to name a few.
But take the time to look at this interesting remark on Roman Monastics here:
In brief, may I suggest to you that what the Roman Church and the UN types share in common is Plato’s caste system consisting of Philosopher King, aristocracy, and lower classes, who are strictly controlled in what they can own or eat.
Now we have two Divine Comedies.
One Devine Comedy is presented today by Tim Ball focused on the nether regions where resides the world-views of Obama & the Pope on climate.
The other Devine Comedy was presented in the 14th century by Dante Alighieri focused on the nether regions of the then medieval world-view of the Catholic Church.
“Adandon all hope ye who enter here**” now into either Ball’s or Dante’s version of the Devine Comedy.
** in Dante’s ‘Devine Comedy’ those words were inscribed at the entrance to Hell
John
And please remember that a centennial of the Magna Carta is this year! Celebrate this wonderful document by watching A History of the English Language, by the inimitable Melvyn Bragg.
I particularly recommend episode 3 for this occasion: you can see what happened to men like Tyndale who translated the Bible out of Latin to English. It wasn’t a pretty sight.
This may be a wonderful opportunity for us all to really appreciate and celebrate the English language, and common law, or equality before the law.
Ah, myths are wonderful, aren’t they? Like the myth that Tyndale was burned for translating the Bible into English. What Tyndale was actually burned for was his determination to translate the Bible in a particular way. Like Luther he translated it in such a way as to bolster support for his own opinions. There’s a big difference. But some people just like perpetuating myths. It’s the only way they can convince themselves that they are right. (For those who don’t know about these things, Luther came up with a completely unheard of doctrine called justification by faith alone. So when he translated the Bible into German he put in the word ‘alone’ after ‘faith’ even though the word ‘alone’ did not appear in the Greek version he translated.)
Alba says, “What Tyndale was actually burned for was his determination to translate the Bible in a particular way. Like Luther he translated it in such a way as to bolster support for his own opinions.”
Surely it is a matter of public record and known history that Pope Innocent forbade the translation of the scriptures into any vernacular language.
“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
– The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
The Divine Comedies most apparent are paranoia about Conspiracies, Motivations, Politics, and (natch) Al Gore. Very little about Science itself.
Could it be that the logic of those ‘Divine Comedies’ are :
1) We don’t like the imagined Policy Solutions, or
2) We don’t like the conspiracies we imagine?
3) We don’t like the political opposition? (Liberals, Democrats, Obama, or what ever the bogeyman)
Only then to be followed by 4) We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?
Only then to be followed by 4) We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?
Coming from someone who has, in this forum, repeatedly challenged guest posters by complaining about their lack of science degrees, while steadfastly refusing to discuss the science presented by them, that comment is just a tad disingenuous.
I didn’t ‘complain’ about anyone’s lack of a degree. I said that if one wants an expert opinion, go to an credentialed expert, such as you would to an credentialed orthopedic surgeon for your hip replacement, not to your local barber.
And I would most certainly avoid a barber who contradicts what the credentialed surgeon says.
I didn’t ‘complain’ about anyone’s lack of a degree.
Oh bullshi*t. You dismissed Monckton’s science on the grounds that he had no degree in physics while refusing to discuss the science itself. Now you stumble into this thread espousing the exact opposite point of view, that we should discuss the science itself rather than the qualifications of the proponent. When called on it, you switch gears and start yapping about hip replacements by orthopedic surgeons. A demonstrated skill set to accomplish a known task by repeating known procedures is not science! Your about face on the issue is as disingenuous as your use of an example that has nothing to do with science. An orthopedic surgeon is no more a scientist than is a dentist or a mechanic. You contradict yourself and hide behind irrelevant analogies, but your hypocrisy is on display for anyone to read for themselves.
Warren, you mentioned continental drift in a rant. The first person to suggest the theory there was such a action was an amateur geologist and he was ridiculed for it in his life. It was later proven, after his death, by the US Navy with sea floor mapping. What were his credentials, was he an expert? And what were the credentials of Faraday, Newton and Tesla, were they experts?
Only in a Warmist Trolls’ fevered imagination.
warrenlb: Since when is an expert opinion from a credentialed expert worth anything? ‘Climate science’ and ‘climate scientists’ in general have many expert but useless opinions based on useless climate models that disproportionately consume vast amounts of cash for no general gain for Joe Public. So much for your BS.
Oh snap! I forgot the military class in Plato’s Caste.
Correction: In brief, may I suggest to you that what the Roman Church and the UN-types share in common is Plato’s caste system consisting of Philosopher King, aristocracy, military class, and lower classes, who are strictly controlled in what they can eat or own. In particular they are not to own land, chariots or weapons.
Zeke: The English language is, said by some, not a language at all but a melting pot of all languages. As much a blend as our DNA. At best it is a scaffold on which words and turns of phrases from other languages have come, and still do come, together to form one of the most colorful and in-understandable modes of communication on the planet. If it wants to be boring, it can. And the next second it can move us to great depths of feeling. Few pure languages can claim such ability.
Yes ma’am, but in my humble opinion English is a lot more Viking than anything else. And so is our family, though since converted as Protestants by King Alfred. (:
http://www.medievalages.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Alfred-The-Great-king.jpg
All Medieval humor aside, Catholics here in the New World make wonderful neighbors (and bloggers)-. I remember once when I was a teenager I was stranded in a small town, and a Catholic police officer gave me a quarter to make a phone call home. He said, “You can pay me back in heaven.” So thirty years later I still remember that and look forward to handing him that coin. Although at the time I had no earthly clue what he was talking about.
Then 12 minutes later we have,
warrenlb,
If your Devine Comedy comment was inspired by my first mention of Devine Comedy on this thread about twelve minutes before yours, then I will reply.
The operative word is ‘Devine’. When the discussion is about the word ‘science’ being utilized in the same context and sense as ‘religion’, then you get the subject of Tim Ball’s post.
Now, I do not agree with Tim Ball in most of the article, but I tend to concur somewhat with his assessment that climate change has become religion; notice I did not call climate change a science (it looks like pseudo-science). My view is a little different than Ball’s; I think climate change is mythology which is the necessary generic pre-curser of all modern religion.
So I find all of your 4 distinctions moot.
John
You say Science is a religion. Does that mean you think the Religion of AGW non-experts is Science?
You say Science is a religion.
He said no such thing. Your arguments rest on a combination of hypocrisy and putting words in other people’s mouths. When you start discussing the science instead of diverting attention from it, you might get some traction. But you won’t because you can’t.
davidmhoffer,
Yes. I responded in like vein to him below. I do continue to offer warrenlb my benevolent consideration.
Hey, I will leave the commentary soon to start serious partying for this afternoon’s Super Bowl 49. Take care. Go Seahawks!
John
And then in reply ~18 min later we have,
warrenlb,
Let me correct your perception of my comment. I basically said something like currently climate change is a pseudo-science and it is has evolved into something that has the a similar context and sense as that of a mythology on which all religion is derived.
Your ‘non-expert’ commentology (for lack of a real word to identify what it is) was suspended in argumentative mid-air.
Science, over time, self-corrects out myth and pseudo elements. Climate focused science is doing significant self-correction now, finally, after ~40 years of subjective focus. Viva la Skeptics.
John
Interesting assertions, Can you back them up?
1) How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
2) How do you conclude only AGW is ‘pseudo’, but the other findings of those Institutions are not? Or do you consider all science concluded by Institutions of Science as ‘pseudo’?
Warrenlb,
resorting to authority again. Why don’t you explain why it isn’t pseudo science. You never have explained anything scientific yet or presented evidence of your beloved CAGW. Like a pampered prince you let others do the hard work.
How do you conclude AGW as concluded by all the world’s Scientific Institutions is ‘psuedo science?
=============
Pseudo science rests on positive examples. I drank water and my aching back felt better. therefore water is the cure for an aching back. I know this to be true because I didn’t do anything else to make by back stop aching.
The IPCC admits that they believe human CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures because they could find no other cause. Therefore CO2 must be the cause.
Science on the other hand rests of negative examples. If one time I didn’t drink water and my back stopped aching, that single negative example would be all it would take science to prove that water did not cure an aching back.
Temperatures rose from 1910 to 1940, statistically identical to 1970 to 2000, yet there was minimal human CO2. That single negative example is sufficient for science to prove that CO2 is not the cause of the 1970-2000 warming.
Since climate science does not know the cause of the 1910 to 1940 warming, they cannot claim to know the cause of the 1970-2000 warming.
Pseudo science however is not bothered by this problem. The inability to explain the 1910-1940 warming is ignored, while human CO2 is assumed to be the cause of the 1970 to 2000 warming because they cannot find any other cause.
Science tells us that the most likely cause of the 1970 to 2000 warming is the same thing that caused the 1910 to 1940 warming. That was caused by “we don’t know”.
warrenlb
Your post says in total
Science consists of seeking the closest possible approximation to truth by seeking information which falsifies existing understanding then amending or replacing the existing understanding to concur with the found information.
Pseudoscience consists of supporting existing understanding as being truth and seeking information which supports the existing understanding.
Please consider if position statements by Institutions represent science or pseudoscience. You will then find the answers to your questions are obvious.
Richard
warrenlb,
I am back from my commenting hiatus due to doing all the parties before, during and after the Super Bowl including hangover recovery this morning. My team lost.
I have a response with a couple of points in addition to the points made in the critical responses to your comment by 4 eyes (February 1, 2015 at 3:05 pm), ferdberple (February 2, 2015 at 6:12 am) and richardscourtney (February 2, 2015 at 8:29 am).
In support of my view that climate change is pseudo-science, look at the speech by Richard Feyman entitled ‘Cargo Cult Science’. Feynman’s description of ‘cargo-cult science’ is applicable to the research paper feeder system supplying the IPCC due to its mandated charter to look for evidence biased toward supporting climate change.
Also in support of my view that climate change is pseudo-science, is that climate change community has a strong pattern to give priority to models and ‘a priori’ premises over corroborated objective observations. That is the fallacy of primacy of consciousness over existence. Only a pseudo-science has it.
Separate from the above points and for intellectual exercise only on the matter of pseudo-science, I have just off-the-top-of-mind and quickly made up a process. Let’s discuss it:
John
Pope simply worry about polar bears.
With all the talk of religions and what not, it’s a good time to point out the true meaning of the “72 virgins reward” for those labelled as martyrs who have performed unspeakable acts, all while trying to force God into a preconceived mold, if you will.
Those 72 virgins are nuns.
Having demonstrated a limited sense of guilt over their thoughts and actions, the subject martyrs shall be reincarnated to grow up as Catholic schoolboys, with 6 different ruler- bearing nuns for each of the 12 years of mandatory parochial school. A proper understanding of guilt is sure to follow.
Warrenlb: ‘And I would most certainly avoid a barber who contradicts what the credentialed surgeon says.’
Maybe, but I recommend a great book (possibly now out of print), ‘The Century of the Surgeon’ – many of the nineteenth century’s most important medical advances were made by those who opposed the ‘credentialed’ crowd, and it was just as true in physics.
Those who speak the truth and can prove they are right have the true ‘credential’.
Taylor
So you would indeed go to your local barber for a hip replacement?
So you would indeed go to your local barber for a hip replacement?
A barber and a surgeon each accomplish their tasks through the repetition of known techniques. Regardless of the skill involved, neither are scientists. Your analogy is moot, and a further attempt to distract from your hypocrisy upthread.
davidmhoffer,
No wonder the alarmist crowd is fast losing traction, with stupid arguments like warrenlb’s.
A much more accurate alalogy is this: you have a hangnail. You mention it to your barber. He tells you to not worry, it will be fine. AGW is much more akin to a hangnail than to any real medical issue.
AGW is not ‘cancer’, or anything else to be concerned about. The premier experts in the field have repeatedly stated that. For example, climatologist Richard Lindzen wrote:
Running around in circles and clucking like Chicken Little is the alarmists’ panicky response to completely routine natural variability. Everything we see now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
Prof Richard Lindzen also wrote:
“There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- 1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”
So global T at the equator has not changed — for more than a billion years!
Maybe our pair of hysterical alarmists here can explain exactly why we should be worried?
…Take you time, I can wait.
Might wonder what dbstealey is trying with this:
““There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- 1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”
So global T at the equator has not changed — for more than a billion years!
Maybe our pair of hysterical alarmists here can explain exactly why we should be worried?”
No MWP. No LIA etc. But on the other hand, an increase in tropical SST:
http://i.imgur.com/mTSejQ9.png
No warming in the tropics for a billion years. But now.. dbstealey must be the most alarmist of all.
@Warrenlb:
You must have missed my end-of-thread collection of past WUWT comments on the medical analogy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/87-is-the-new-97/#comment-1849087
an increase in tropical SST:
===================
Your reference does not show the error bars. Nor does it show actual temperatures.
the notion that we can calculate the ocean temperatures to a fraction of a degree based on intermittent ships reports from 100+ years ago is fanciful at best.
Find rural stations from 100+ years ago that are still rural stations today. You will find that the unadjusted raw data shows there has been no change.
The problem is that for large areas of the earth there is no data. these areas have been in-filled will made up data, and this made up data has unknown error.
You cannot say how far off the calculated result truly is, except by comparing them to climate models. And if the models have bias, as they appear to have, this bias will be reflected in your in-filled temperatures and thus in the calculated average temps.
the problem is that the climate models rely on temps and temps rely on climate models. A small error in one results in a feedback loop that gets amplified over and over again.
rooter, get a grip. I gave you a well known quote and you go all ballistic.
A lot of times I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say. This is one of them. I never said or implied that the MWP and LIA did not occur. Where did you get that nonsense? And what are you trying to show with that chart? It simply tracks the recovery from the LIA. What do you want, a totally flat line?
I suggest that you get familiar with the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. It shows that there is nothing unprecedented happening. If you believe differently, it is simply your confirmation bias at work.
“Ball” said the queen, “if I had two of you possibly we could convince my family to shut up about climate change.” We need more Balls, not because I agree with him, but because he is interesting, erudite, and makes insightful points. Who else would quote Chaucer in an article about climate change and the pope!
I like the pope even though I’m an agnostic. I like Obama even though I think he and the pope are both ignorant and wrong about global warming/climate change. I dislike Holdren and Kerry and others who promote doomsday messages, but they aren’t the reason the pope or Obama embrace the CAGW exaggerations. It’s the scientific academies. Lots of over-the-top political ranting occurs on these blogs, similar to the over-the-top ranting by the CAGW crowd. Blame the pope. Blame Obama. NO! Blame the scientific academies. I wish Ball were a little more catholic in his criticisms. I am very critical of my fellow liberals- https://sites.google.com/site/climatesensitivity/
I don’t see Ball creating the level playing field that actually advances understanding and debate much beyond the polarized and politicalized “darkling plain,
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.”
Please tell us the exaggerations that you say have appeared on ‘blogs’ from scientific academies.
It’s really very easy warrenlb. Just google “climate models”. Hope that helps. 🙂
Actually Warren, I spend considerable time showing the 1988 and 1990 model projections of CAGW that almost all science academies uncritically embraced.. David Ball is correct. And the good news is that scientific method is working. Well, sorta. The IPCC has replaced those 1990 model projections of 3.7 C per century with its 2013 much lower model projections. The earlier high sensitivity models were falsified, based the IPCC action to replace them. The problem is the pope, Obama, most journalists, pundits and public know nothing about this good news. The politicians and bureaucracy that wrote the 2013 “Summary for Poilcymakers” omit (censure may be the right word) this lowering of climate sensitivity estimates thereby guaranteeing the obsolete sensitivity estimates will continue to fuel the climate wars. One scientific academy, The American Physics Society, made a good start last year towards addressing their previous endorsement of CAGW. I hope we hear from them soon. I imagine they’re under terrific pressure by both sides in this crazy climate war. Climate science needs to get back to data and scientific method-
https://sites.google.com/site/climatesensitivity/
When it comes to major issues like Global Warming you simply have to ask yourself this question.
Am I happy here is this group, standing shoulder to shoulder with The Pope, Al Gore, Barak Obama and Tony Blair?
Charles,
Your shoulder-to-shoulder listing is incomplete. A photo collage would be worth 10,000 words. Start with this ex-cartoonist, John Cook:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/debunk/skepticalscience/1_herrcook-sml.gif
And a credentialed doctor.
I like the 1968 production better but… this one fits the photo
michael
No he’s not! He may well have a Ph D in physics, but he gave that up to draw cartoons.
Patrick,
Thank you. Even if Cook was an M.D., it would just be another example of the interminable logical fallacies that constitute the biggest part by far of that alarmist’s argument.
How did Warren’s post change from physicist to doctor since yesterday? (Could very well be I was not wearing my glasses…but I am sure it read physicist).
You’d think that the pope would know that not hitting back, turning the other cheek sort of one of the tenets of Christianity, but.. this one thinks otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFXn5QL432s#t=275. Something is very wrong with this pope.
@davidmhoffer. BS right back at you. I said multiple places that credentials matter – a lot – if you want reliable critique of a scientific topic. And MofB has none.
warrenlb says:
I said multiple places that credentials matter – a lot…
Your problem is that you cherry-pick whatever you want, and reject anything that contradicts you.
There is no one who has better credentials than M.I.T.’s head of atmospheric studies: Climatologist Richard Lindzen.
I and most here agree with Lindzen’s view. But he would laugh you out of the room for some of your nonsense, like your stated True Belief that man-made global warming is now rising at the rate of 3º every 100 years. Where do you get your misinformation?? More to the point: why would you believe such obvious BS?
That claim is so preposterous that you are fast becoming a laughingstock. There has been no global warming for almost twenty years now. That is one-fifth of your 100 years. The planet will have to just about catch fire, and pretty quick, if you’re anything close to being right.
But I don’t think you are. That would be a first.
db, The 3 degrees is not on this post. Do you remember where? F or C?
If warren is reading — What do you know about this rate? Where did your number come from?
Thanks, to both — I’m just trying to keep up.
Warren posted that figure (3 degrees, did not state weather C or F), I can only assume it was based on the opinions of credentialed expert scienetists that Warren keeps on mentioning, and I cannot recall what thread that was in. He did not provide a link as I recall. So, I would suggest Warren’s claim is a load of BS!
warrenlb February 1, 2015 at 1:49 pm
@davidmhoffer. BS right back at you. I said multiple places that credentials matter
Yup, you’re big on the appeal to authority thing, agreed. But upthread, you also said:
We reject the Science, precisely because we don’t like 1, 2, or 3, rather than disagreeing with the science itself?
Which is why I called out your hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you are OK with being a blatant hypocrite.
Oh, you didn’t get that ‘we’ is you?
warrenlb February 1, 2015 at 8:53 pm
Oh, you didn’t get that ‘we’ is you?
Wow. Yeah, I got it. You p*ssed all over “me” for not directly discussing the science, and in another thread you p*ssed all over “me” for directly discussing the science.
How stupid do you think “we” are?
Can you list the [credentials] of Gore, Flannery, Pachoury et al? Flannery, the climate change adviser to the Australian ALP/Green govn’t, his first “credential” was English Lit!
@David Ball. So the models are the ‘exaggeration’ you alluded to?
@warrenlb, here ya go:
http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Model-Comparison.png
Seen this chart. Doesnt identify emission scenarios, or source. Here’s the complete story:
http://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
Too funny! Not only have you been called out on you foolish rants, you link to Sks?
Whenever you see a models to actuals comparison where all the data series start off exactly at zero, you can be sure someone is playing games with the anomaly baseline. Which there is no reason to do because the standard baseline for CMIP5 is 1986-2005. Here it is done properly, with Spencer’s plot laid over the top for comparison:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wGX4QFvJi34/VM-Qy5dKHZI/AAAAAAAAAUc/4ga4Xt01E_s/s1600/Climate-Model-Comparison%2BSpencer.png
Warrenlb, Please comment on Bruce’s plots from the CMIP5. Are the models wrong or are the observations wrong. This really is a simple question that even you can answer in a couple of words. Clearly they’re not both right.
I’ve seen this chart before. I remember that It omits several critical modeling runs which just happen to represent the emission scenarios most closely aligned with the actual emissions of the time period. And for those missing modeling runs, the actuals are in line with the modeling,
In other word, this chart is an intentional fraud.
warrenlb;
And for those missing modeling runs, the actuals are in line with the modeling,
Really? Then why did the IPCC substitute “expert judgment” for model projections in AR5? If the models were “in line” with actuals, you’d think they would have proudly proclaimed their accuracy. Instead they said, hey never mind the models, here’s our “expert judgment” instead.
If I was Pope I would be quite a lot suspicious of politicians who flew across the world to get me to sign up as a cheerleader for a policy that carried little weight with their domestic electorate.
Given their track record, having the RC church come out for controlling climate change almost guarantees that the current model is wrong. If the Pope had only claimed infallibility you could have been dead certain it was wrong. Oh, well, the evidence still says that it is. There’s still a possibility he will take a harder line, I guess.
Dr. Ball,
What does John Kerry’s heritage have to do with his wrong-headedness about climate change? Your reference to a possible Jewish ancestry seems pointless at best. It has no relationship to the rest of your essay. It doesn’t have the same relevance as the association between his and the Pope’s shared Catholicism. So why include it?
A bit like ‘we live in a huge mainframe’.
————–
42?
What gives with the Royal family? Prince Philip wants to come back as an endangered species and Charlie Boy said he wanted to be a tampon.
Nicely researched post Dr Ball.
Actually, Catholic doctrine doesn’t forbid population control – it just forbids the current techniques which are being used. It is quite happy with ‘abstinence’. You may disagree on whether it SHOULD forbid the current techniques – but it’s those that are the issue…
Pope Francis DOES have a major problem with something even more fundamental, however. Recently he responded to the shootings of cartoonists in France by suggesting that people should stop insulting religions so much.
“If you insult my mother..”, he commented, “..expect to see a fist..”.
Someone should have told him that EVERY basic Christianity sect, from Catholics, through Greek Orthodox to Quakers, all agree that Jesus’ teaching on violence was to eschew it and turn the other cheek. It’s really Christianity 101…
Dodgy Geezer:
Yes, except… There is a BIG difference between a fist fight and multiple rounds from an AK-47. As in one is rarely fatal, the other rarely not. I’m not Catholic, but I have a huge problem with that statement by this Pope. Verbal insults and petty violence, such as a slap, are to be met with pity, not violence. That’s what the “Other Cheek” in Matthew refers to. Deadly violence is another issue altogether, which Luke 22 deals with in “…And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
In other words, the terrorists should (according to Christian ethics) have felt pity for the Charlie cartoonists and prayed for them, etc. But when they chose to attack with deadly force in the form of assault rifles, the cartoonists would have been within their rights (again according to Christian ethics) to have met them with an M-60.
It appears to me that this Pope has more affinity to politics than the Gospel. Not a particularly new thing in the history of the CC, but somewhat annoying in this day and age.
Regards,
How many people did Jesus or Buddha order put to death? Can the Catholic Church make the same claim? Isn’t the history of the Catholic Church more like Mohammed and Islam, sentencing enemies to death?
ferdberple
When? 500 years ago? Hasn’t been much “persecution of witches” since the 1600’s, has there? inquisition was stopped, wasn’t it?
But Islamic terrorists have killed some 104,000 people in 24,000 separate acts of terrorism and violence since 2001. Islam began conquering, killing, enslaving, and taxing non-believers in 680. And has not stopped since.
saw a story online about IIASA ((International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) World Population Program Director Wolfgang Lutz giving a presentation entitled “World population trends and adaptive capacity to climate change” at the Closing Ceremony of the Southern African Young Scientists Summer Program that took place in South Africa on 30 January 2015. Raya Muttarak, researcher at IIASA’s World Population Program, was said to be co-supervising two students under the theme “Demographic differential vulnerability to environmental change and climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa”….
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/WorldPopulation/Meetings/150130-SA_YSSP_2015.html
so i looked up IIASA, whose website is full of CAGW articles plus links to Population stories :
Wikipedia: IIASA
When the Cold War ended, IIASA’s sponsoring countries could have said “mission accomplished” and disbanded the Institute…
IIASA had shown the scientific benefits of bringing together different nationalities and disciplines to work toward common goals. Indeed, this approach has been widely imitated, for example, in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme…
So instead of closing in the 1990s the Institute broadened its mandate from the East and West to a truly global focus. Today IIASA brings together a wide range of scientific skills to provide science-based insights into critical policy issues in international and national debates on global change…
In 2010, IIASA launched a new strategic plan for the next ten years, which focuses on three general problem areas: Energy & Climate Change, Food & Water, and Poverty & Equity…
Every year approximately 200 researchers from over 35 countries research at IIASA…
Ten IIASA scientists who co-authored the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize…
IIASA researchers are major contributors to Working Groups II and III of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Applied_Systems_Analysis
looks like IIASA got right into it once the USSR collapsed:
PDF: 17 pages: 1989: IIASA: Options: Energy-Eclogy: the critical link
IlASA is an international research institution, which draws on the scientific and financial resources of member organizations in 16 countries to address problems of global significance.
It has four established research Programs, continually updated to target on emerging issues in areas of major international concern.
* Environment
* Technology, Economy, and Society
* System and Decision Sciences
*Population
The link between energy and ecology – which is at the root of global climate change, acid rain, forest dieback, and several other major environmental problems and which is forcing a complete rethinking of our approach to technological, economic, and social development – has emerged as one of the most pressing international issues on both research and policy agendas…
page 11: Interview with Nathan Keyfitz
Professor Nathan Keyfitz, Leader of IIASA’s Population Program, is a world expert on population
issues. He joined IlASA in 1983 from Harvard University, USA, where he is Andelot Professor of Sociology Emeritus, and from Ohio State University, where he is Lazarus Professor of Social Demography Emeritus…
Q.. . Many economists argue that population control is not so important. Why do you think they’re wrong?
A.. . Essentially, this is the result of a narrow disciplinary perspective that treats economics in isolation from its real-world setting. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon…
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/resources/publications/IIASAMagazineOptions/opt89-2jun.pdf
First doctors must have license. Climate scientists do not. Doctors who preform surgery must have their M&M documented Climate scientist do not.
need I go on . The comparison is flawed.
michael
Ah, the old “I vass in Argentina durinck zer Var! I vass a ski inztruktor on zer Pampas!” defense, eh?
Just ignore the scar on the medial aspect of the left upper arm where the Blutgruppe tattoo used to be.
It appears the Church is already on that one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html
The Catholic Church has a precise knack for jumping in on the wrong side of scientific issues. Religion and science have nothing in common and do not speak about the same dimensions.
Care to give any other examples apart from the usually misunderstood case of Galileo? You’ll struggle. But myths are there to keep you happy in your own opinions.
The only struggle is to find an example where the Church has proven correct and science wrong.
And this in a world where scientific theories are routinely proven wrong as measuring equipment improves. Heavy objects fall faster was a fine theory, until someone thought to measure if it was true.
ferdberple, the simplest explanation for the universe was that it had no beginning and thus no prime cause was required. Occam’s razor led to the belief in the steady-state universe.
The Catholic Church insisted that the universe was created in light.
I’m no Catholic but it surprises me that anyone thinks that any organisation is 100% wrong on everything over two millennia. There seems to be some prejudice that needs to be self-examined.
MCourtney says, “ferdberple, the simplest explanation for the universe was that it had no beginning and thus no prime cause was required. Occam’s razor led to the belief in the steady-state universe.
The Catholic Church insisted that the universe was created in light.”
1. Ex Nihilo. Technically, the Roman Church taught that the universe was created “ex nihilo.” That is, as you know, “out of nothing.” The phrase does not originate in the Latin Vulgate, but comes from theological writings, according to Wik. However, the Hebrew actually says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was [/became] without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
2. The Big Bang. The difference is actually substantial. And of course, we know that the Priest, George LeMaiter developed the big bang, in which nothing existed and nothing exploded and now we have everything. Shorthand version, for larks.
3. Steady state. Steady state, Gap theory, young earth, spiritualized and allegorized interpretations of the original words are all views people hold when reading the Hebrew passage. I think it is blindingly obvious that the phrase “and the earth became without form and void,” or “was vanity and emptiness” (tohu ve bohu) reflects the fact that there has been a cataclysmic event. It is not the way it was created, nor was it a necessary step, nor in the character of Yahweh to need “waste and emptiness”.
4. Gap theory. You can look at a verse here that says that He did not create it “in vain” (tohu תֹּהוּ) or to be “empty.” Isaiah 45:18. Identical language when set next to Genesis 1.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=45&v=18&t=NKJV#s=t_conc_724018
It is all of unknown age and extent. Thank you very much for your attention if any one got this far.
The environmental green pogrom on poor, uneducated, defenceless people of colour is well underway:
Ten Indian women die and dozens critical after mass sterilisation
Dozens of women fall seriously ill after receiving state sterilisation to control growing population
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/11222316/Eight-Indian-women-die-and-dozens-critical-after-mass-sterilisation.html
~ ~ ~
“With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object.
Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
~ ~ ~
The church is welcome to it’s new, green friends:
http://www.thelocal.de/20141112/greens-say-sorry-for-past-paedophilia-ties
Isn’t this the moment when Jesus storms into the church and turns over the tables?
Or Moses, on coming down the mountain, sees the worshiping of the golden calf?
“What would Forrest Gump do?”
http://cdn.hitfix.com/photos/5632692/ForrestGumpTomHanksLSParamount_article_story_large.jpg
Dr Ball,
I respect you a great deal. I am also a great fan of yours and A Watts et al.
I see that you quoted a great number of people but none of your quotes were attributed to the Pope regarding climate change. I actually read what he said. I will give you an opportunity to walk back your somewhat nasty and inappropriate ad hominem particularly your last sentence.
I expect a pontiff to encourage proper custodianship of this planet. I expect the a pontiff to consult with the best scientists on how to do so. The problem isn’t what the pope said, which I think is well and proper. The problem is that the scientists who are advising him are not actually scientists nor are they advising science.
This has been the greatest part of my criticism of the AGW movement. The Science has been corrupted at its roots. You must not hold a religious figure to account for him quoting many scientists who are recognized. He is just referring to scientific experts. The scientists are the people who need chastisement for leading those less knowledgeable astray. It is the scientists who do not practice science who are at fault.
I think you are frustrated and you lashed out at the wrong person and people. Many good catholics are fantastic scientists, like Mendel, the father of genetics, Lemaitre, the father of the big bang, Copernicus, the predecessor of Galileo who first published the heliocentric Cosmos model etc etc.
You should step back, take a breath, and reconsider the facts.
1) What exactly did Pope Francis say about climate science that is so earth shattering?
2) What did the media and activists say that he said?
You will only serve to alienate yourself by wrongly misdirecting criticism to a man who didn’t really say anything that bad. Also your criticism wasn’t confined to what the pope said about climate. You went on a bit of a screed about catholicism in general. That was just unfortunate and a bit mean.
Pope Francis on climate change: Man has ‘slapped nature in the face’
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE — Pope Francis said Thursday he is convinced that global warming is “mostly” man-made and that he hopes his upcoming encyclical on the environment…
http://www.dailynews.com/environment-and-nature/20150115/pope-francis-on-climate-change-man-has-slapped-nature-in-the-face
Pure global warming climate change warmist pap from the Pope.
No Bob he did not say that. You, as well as many others are both being critical while misquoting him.
You said that he said that global warming is “mostly”…
He actually said that “might be mostly” Why did you leave out the “might be” part? He said “might be” because he doesn’t know for sure And that is the truth He doesn’t know.
It is a lie to exclude things he said, just as it a lie to say things he didn’t say. So get the quote correct first.. It os pretty weak that you first misquote him, then criticize him based on you false quote. Facts please.
Paul if he did not say that, why was this article I directly copied in the dailynews? I’m sorry, I should put quotes around that. My only comment was the last sentence. If the Pope really didn’t say that, why are those quotes all over the internet? Are you sure he didn’t say that?
Take a look: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBT.I65M9UUFoAvsFXNyoA?p=Pope+%22slapped+nature+in+the+face%22&n=10&ei=UTF-8&va_vt=any&vo_vt=any&ve_vt=any&vp_vt=any&vst=0&vf=all&vm=i&fl=0&fr=altavista&xargs=0&b=11&xa=Iyp2Nqy8mC0eBGpXJ5BRcQ–,1422996922
Bob, What he said is well documented. People all over the Internet are extrapolating and condensing (as you did) words, and therefore meaning, that he never said or intended. 2 Months ago the “internet” claimed that Pope Francis said that dogs go to heaven. He never said that either.
Here is an English translation of what he said:
“I don’t know if it is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face,” he said. “We have in a sense taken over nature.”
That is quite different from what you claimed he said.
More Importantly, Bob. You notice that even Tim Ball, whom I respect, never actually produced the exact language from the pope. Why didn’t Tim Ball actually use the exact quote? I say it is because there isn’t much there there. The pope’s quote really doesn’t add to Ball’s narrative,
Now that aside, I agree with the general tone of Ball’s opinion piece, but the Pope did not say what is being repeated. Also I think Ball’s opinion piece has the smell of hate effused within the text. He should not have done that.
Paul, if you are correct, then why hasn’t the Vatican issued a warning to the media to stop putting words in his mouth?
How could the media misquote the Pope and get away with it? It is a conspiracy Paul?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/europe/2015/01/popes_statement_on_climate_change_5_things_to_know
“HOW FAR WILL HE GO?
Francis has already asserted that climate change is happening and people are partly to blame. “I don’t know if it (human activity) is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face,” he said last week. He has also indicated the body of the encyclical will not be consumed with scientific analysis.
“It’s not an easy issue because on the protection of creation and the study of human ecology, you can speak with sure certainty up to a certain point then come the scientific hypotheses some of which are rather sure, others aren’t,” Francis said at a news conference last August. “In an encyclical like this that must be magisterial, it must only go forward on certainties, things that are sure.”
At a U.N. Climate Change Summit in New York last September, the pope’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, urged international intervention to curb global warming, “not only strengthening, deepening and consolidating the political process on a global level, but also intensifying our commitment to a profound cultural renewal,” according to a Vatican radio transcript.
In a November speech in London, Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a close friend of Francis, called for consideration of such policies as taxing and regulating environmental violations, among other moral and social remedies.
“Market forces alone, with no ethics and collective action, cannot solve the interrelated crises of poverty, exclusion and the environment,” Sanchez Sorondo said.
Still, Francis alone will decide what the encyclical will say.”
So Paul, he actually did not say “might be mostly”. He said “I don’t know if it (human activity) is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face.”
He has passed judgement in spite of admitting he doesn’t know. Hmmmm.
“…consolidating the political process on a global level…” Hmmmm.
This the translation of the exact quote and what Tim Ball could not bring himself to show you.
“I don’t know if it is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face,” he said. “We have in a sense taken over nature.”
His first 3 words were “I DON’t KNOW”. Furthermore he says nothing in particular as to what man had done, other than slap the face of nature, whatever that means.
Why didn’t Tim Ball write out the quote?
If he doesn’t know Paul, as both you and he amply point out, then why has he pronounced judgement, why should anyone listen to him if he doesn’t know, and what kind of “authority figure” does than then make him?
I notice you continually DENY the thrust of the Pope’s brief quote, and you deny that he was accurately quoted widely worldwide, and you deny the implications of your denial – that you ARE FOOLING YOURSELF, no less than the Pope is fooling himself!!!!
Give it up already, you’ve lost this argument.
I bet the Pope does not know why world population grew from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion today when fertility rate dropped by half to 2.3 children per woman in the same period. That’s the lowest in recorded history. Two reasons. One, infant mortality rate decreased tenfold to 6.3% of live birth. Two, life expectancy doubled to 71 years.
If he wants to reduce population quickly, stop vaccination and health care of infants to increase their mortality rate, and put more toxic substances in the environment so people will die younger. Or we can just wait as fertility rates continue to drop. If Japan doesn’t increase its fertility rate, in 500 years there will be only 15 Japanese left on the planet.
“Practically countries that survive this inevitable decline support families and open the gates to immigration.”
The global average fertility rate is 2.3 children per woman and dropping. Immigration will not solve the “problem” of population decline when all the countries fertility rate is declining to below 2.
“So the population does not age, there are taxpayers and able workers to carry on the purposes of the state.”
The world population does age. Think of the world as one big country.
Dr Ball,
For many years now WUWT has been effective at holding the idiot scientist to account for bad science. and the promotion of AGW. I wish WUWT to continue to be effective. I put the blame for the destruction of science on the lap of the likes of Phil Jones, Al Gore, and Michael Mann etc. I do not blame Mother Theresa, the Dali Lama, the Pope, Wayne Gretsky, Brad Pitt, at all. They are not scientific scholars.
I think WUWT needs to keep its eye on the ball and to not be distracted by what nefarious media wonks say celebrities say about climate.
Dr Ball, I seriously suggest that you and Anthony etc contact the Papal Nuncio in the USA and arrange a visit with him and express your view of the science. You do that very well and you are very convincing. You should also politely express how the Club of Rome is acting against the interests of the Church. I think many of the church leaders agree with you. You may have put them off with this article so if you rework your arguments as sincere advice from a respected climate expert, as you are, sans the nasty stuff, I bet he will heed your advise.
You need to be heard as a legitimate thinker, not dismissed as a hate monger.
No one here hates the Pope nor is anyone calling for hatred of the Pope. What I hate if anything is how the Pope was so easily swayed by the one-sided warmist storyline, and how he was manipulated by the White House and the wrong-headed scientists who can’t prove people caused global warming and climate change. What I hate is a world being led down this path on false premises. What I hate is the eternal burning in the warmists heart that desires DEATH to so many so they can reap the spoils. What I hate is the fact that the Pope represents that false ideology, and has declared that the human race is guilty, without due process. He is entirely insulated and may have never seen the light as so many sceptics have. What I see is that he isn’t scientific, he doesn’t see both sides.
His intended actions are actually a form of secular humanism, if you get right down to it. Where man is all-powerful enough to first warm the planet, and then under their warmist policies supposedly all-powerful enough to cool the planet. Bizzare.
Johanus, February 1, 2015 at 8:51 am
“…the Kerrys changed their name from Kohn and converted from Judaism to Catholicism.”
Which means, in birthright according to Torah Law, Kerry holds the rank of kohen (כֹּהֵן, high priest), a right which was conferred on the first kohen Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his sons as an everlasting covenant. Exodus 28:1-4
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
“Kagan” was the title of the rulers of Khazaria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Ruling_elite
That’s probably how the Cohen/Kohn/Kagans became the priestly caste in modern Judaism.
“That’s probably how the Cohen/Kohn/Kagans became the priestly caste in modern Judaism.”
No, there are no priests in modern Judaism, and probably won’t be until the temple is rebuilt. (But the kohanim know who they are and will be ready if that happens.)
The Khazars only date back one or two thousand years, whereas the use of the triliteral K-H-N to denote ‘priest’ precedes Hebrew usage (Moses and Aaron lived somewhere around 1500-1200BCE) to ancient Sumeria and the Akkadian language:
KAHENNU (Akkadian). “Priest.” Cognate with Arabic KAHEN and Hebrew KOHEN.
And with a few exceptions (Melchizedek, Samuel) the priests were not kings or rulers (although some kings (melekim) assumed priestly roles). (Samuel was more of a “king maker”)
But some historians argue that some Khazars did indeed convert to Judaism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Judaism
You can’t always judge the etymology of words by the appearance of similar words in other languages. For example, in Hawaiian “kahuna” means “priest, sorcerer, magician, wizard, minister, expert in any profession” and even preserves the K-H-N triliterals. But has no connection to the Semitic K-H-N.
… correction, Samuel was a prophet, not a priest.
For the catholic church, scientists are always evil.
Illuminati! Illuminati!
“Pope,” like other titles, such as “king,” should not be capitalized unless it precedes the name of a holder of that title. The Chicago Manual of Style states:
The IPCC/UN and he Catholic church would seem ideal bedfellows. Both are greedy money grubbing parasites which hold out promises of salvation which will never and can never materialise based on ludicrous and false premisses. Both are manned by high priest who advocate one rule for you and another for use – in both cases the high priests live in luxury and the congregation live in poverty – whilst also claiming they are trying to improve the lot of the congregation whilst actually curtailing any real possibility for self improvement. Both have attempted to corrupt and retard science to some degree or other, Galileo’s run in with the church and IPCC/UN record ad nausaum. Both have advocated execution of heretics.
More can be added to the list I’m sure.
‘It is certainly not as though the Catholic clergy have a good record, now or in the past, of getting the science right.’
Au contraire, the most eminent cosmologists in Europe in the 18th century were Jesuits. They educated the Chinese who believed the world was largely flat about earth and space. Copernicus was a Catholic monk and priest. The cosmologist who first proposed, the now popular Big Bang theory, was a Belgian priest etc etc. Overall, I’d say the Catholic Church, due to its antiquity and long-held support for the natural sciences, has probably a better track record in scientific discovery than any university in the West today in terms of the number of important scientists in its ranks of religious and clergy.
I like WUWT as the commenters here are generally bright, articulate and well-read. However, I’m beginning to doubt that now due to the quality of many of the comments here on this. This is run-of the-mill and typical anti-Catholic prejudice (like anti-Semitism, a centuries-old part of European & latterly North American politics). I was utterly amazed to hear recently from an American former southern-raised Baptist (now a Catholic) the extent, even today, that many Protestants are raised to hate or distrust Catholics – mind boggling! Catholics don’t spend a lot of time thinking or talking about Protestants but if they do the sentiment is largely one of feeling sorry for them.
What? Catholics educated the Chinese in the 18th century, really? I guess Muslims (Arabs) didn’t lend their study or technology to the Christian world (Read the device used to “find Mecca” gave birth to the sextant) either?
Yes, Patrick – they did. The Jesuits were amongst the first Christian missionaries to China in the 18th century. The second half of your post doesn’t make any sense to me.
Many partly think what they do because of papal pronouncements that have zero basis in reality or are otherwise misguided, which essentially undermines papal authority in the long run. For how long would this have to go on before people revolt against that authority in the long run as life and reality doesn’t conform to papal edicts?
People will know, they’ll figure it out, they’ll get educated, as we start to cool off under low solar conditions, which will undermine what the Pope is supporting, he’ll lose respect. The people will not like being impoverished over a falsehood imposed on them by a religious authority figure for no good reason.
As in all religions Hoplite, there are standout individuals who would have probably made the same kind of mark on the world no matter what religion they belonged.
Pope Francis preaching GW and by default population control is not surprising. Two months ago he worshipped a false idol when he bowed toward Mecca (meteorite) with Muslims to pray! He obviously got the same lecture as the administrator of Nasa who stated Muslim outreach was mission number one…
the pope is a socialist and evil. Evil because he said Islam is a peaceful religion which he knows is a lie.
Paul – you’re guilty of online ragegasm (my new word I learnt today!). Given that it’s only thousands (or maybe at a push hundreds of thousands) of Muslims who are engaging in violence against the West out of a potential pool of over 2 billion that amounts still to less than 1/100th of 1%! Now talk about tarring everyone with the one brush!! I work and live with Muslims and the violence and intolerance I am exposed to is much much less than in the West generally and in the US particularly. You need to get out a bit more Paul meet some Muslims and you will find them nice peaceable people. Given the amount of killing and conquest engaged with by the West over the last 2 centuries we really can’t be pointing the finger at them and saying they’re violent people! Time to brush off your prejudices.
Read the Koran when muslims rule a country according to the koran you either convert to Islam or die but if you are a person of the book Jew or Christian then you can live if you pay a tax.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Shariah Read this article to find out what muslims really think and believe in
Is there any instance where the Catholic Church initialy got it right regarding science?
Obviously Mendel and they knew the universe had a beginning from revelation.
There are other cases.
You’d do better to be offended at the Catholic Church’s conservative social attitude rather than its funding of research.
After all, who do you think funded Galileo?
Sunspot,
Yes. The Church embraced Copernican celestial mechanics before Galileo, they changed the calender from the Juian to Gregorian to correct the error in the seasons, invented the study of genetics (Gregor Mendel), invented the big bang theory, (LeMaitre), evolution was accepted by JPII, Analytical Geometry (Decartes) …. etc etc….to name but a few small contributions.
Don’t forget they started the entire western university system itself. Is that enough for today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
This is what Galileo pointed out to those who were wodering why there were so many scholastics so ruthlessly opposing him, regarding Copernicus: In Galileo’s own words, in his own defense:
“In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible (at least with the common people) to make this opinion seem new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform. At that time the calendar was defective because the true measures of the year and of the lunar month were not exactly known. The Bishop of Fossombrone, then in charge of this matter, assigned Copernicus to seek more light and greater certainty concerning the celestial motions by means of constant study and labor. With Herculean toil he set his admirable mind to this task, and he made such great progress in this science and brought our knowledge of the heavenly motions to such precision that he became celebrated as an astronomer. Since that time not only has the calendar been regulated by his teachings, but tables of all the motions of the plantets have been calculated as well.”
Galileo said that the reason he was being opposed and pursued was because he was refuting Ptolemy and Aristotle.
Zeke,
The two trial of Galileo resulted in 2 judgments. 1) Galileo admitted that he had no objective proof that the earth revolved around a FIXED sun. He did not have any proof. He had a hypothesis. 2) Galileo extrapolated his scientific knowledge into the realm of the scriptures and usurped the teaching authority of the Church. On 1) Galileo was 1/2 wrong. On 2) Galileo was 100% wrong.
Johannes Kepler came to Galileo’s defense, using the Church accepted Copernican model as a foundation. In fact, Copernicus’ book was authorized and signed by Pope Paul III himself.
Galileo never made the claim you placed in bold. I suggest you learn the language of the 15th century scholars and read the transcripts of his trials. Your claims are your fabrications.
Galileo’s statement in his own defense:
“Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the arrangement of the pars of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth rotates on its axis and revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way. In addition there are astronomical arguments derived from many things in my new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis.”
Zeke,
Like I said, the initial bolded statement was never made by Galileo. You found one of the famous letters and you infer from it something not stated, then you bold something else that sort of sounds like what you claimed to be Galileo’s words. Not cool.
The Church embraced Copernican mechanics BEFORE Galileo was even known. Copernicus asked permission to print his book of Pope Paul III, who agreed and wrote in it himself. The protestant reformations were the enemies of Copernicus who accused Copernicus of sorcery. The protestants and most of the science community did not accept the Copernican model. It was new and revolutionary.
So your assertion that Galileo’s letters to the Grand Duchess regarding “they” bore some relevance to the articles of his trials and make conclusions is quite a stretch. He certainly was no enemy of the Church.
In the every same letter Galileo also says:
” I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth”
Furthermore in your very quote Galileo states that the sun is immovable. ie ” I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs”. During his trial, he is asked to prove that. Prove that the sun does not move and that the earth rotates around it. He could not. He was instructed to admit that he could not prove it. Eventually, he capitulated and admitted he could offer no proof that the sun was motionless, which it isn’t, and that the earth rotates around it, which it does.
In his letter to the Grand Duchess Galileo also quotes a cardinal who had said to him,
“I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: “That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes.””
“That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes.”
That was first uttered by a cardinal, then later copied by Galileo, then later copied by everyone, attributing it to Galileo, especially the quack, Neil deGrasse Tyson. he says it all of the time not knowing it came from a catholic cardinal. What an ignoramus.
Both statements by Galileo are plain enough. Objective observers will decide for themselves.
Why should anybody leave it to the Pope to decide any such thing to begin with?
His OPINION is no better than any other person’s opinion who can’t or won’t recognize and acknowledge that the 0.8 degrees centigrade of temperature rise since 1880 is nothing, has caused no problems, and that that temperature rise is not leading to any catastrophe down the road. What makes his opinion so special that he should decide? He should’ve stayed out of it. I’m sorry Lewis, but these issues are not going away.
I’m ROFL at Google’s ad placement. This morning one showing young females prancing in short dresses appears below this article.
That doesn’t work against population control?
But hey! it’s Goofedup Google. 🙂
The catholic church receives a large amount of money from the US Federal gubment. Of course they have to play nice.
The point that Tim Ball has made, and his intelligent concern, is that the Roman Church appears at this time to be in the process of departing from its foundational teachings about population control/birth control, and accepting current sustainability doctrine from science.
It is well to look into this trend, and there is plenty of feedback here if the Roman Church wants to know what the “laity” thinks of this.
Yet it is probably a good time to realize that the sustainability/UN activists are active in the greening of all religions. The scientific paradigm of sustainability has been long in the making and it is an “interdisciplinary” paradigm, including the soft sciences, arts, and the kitchen sink – what ever it takes to enforce the sustainability scientific paradigm messaging at all times and in all places. This includes especially misappropriated and mischaracterized spiritual/traditional faiths – and even the occult.
I found this recently. Look, Hippy Daycare, or Cannabis Generation Spiritual Disneyland!
If you dare to look, the sri sri followers are claiming to have seen him “raise the dead” and “walk on water.” He also has PhDs and worked for NASA to boot. A little of everything! Doesn’t that seem like a lot of money to build a sustainable city “out of whole cloth,” shall we say?
So the fact is that scientists and Cannabis Generation environmentalists and atheists have long been practicing the shameless use of folk beliefs and texts as a sockpuppet for their own objectives. It has been going on for decades now. It is regular fare. And so out of concern I think it is right to point out that it is not only the laity in the Roman Chruch who are being groomed for the green scientific paradigm of sustainability. Everyone is.
For anybody who wants to get a better understanding of Pope Francis’ thoughts about the size of families I recommend the following:
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-holy-father-pope-francis-supports.html
http://redcardigan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/why-no-were-not-rabbits.html
I’m surprised to find WUWT followers falling for the MSM version.
Fertility rates for four predominantly catholic countries are;
Poland – 1.41
Hungary – 1.41
Italy – 1.48
France – 1.98
Oh that the claim that those countries are ‘predominantly’ Catholic were true of all of them. France, unfortunately, ceased to be a predominantly Catholic country many years ago. Church-going attendance in both France and Hungary was recently (2005) put as low as 12 per cent. of the population. The figure for Italy was 31 per cent. Hardly evidence of being ‘predominantly Catholic’, But that level of misinformation just about sums up Mr Ball’s article.
Nor is there any such entity as ‘the Catholic Church of Scotland”. There is a (Protestant) Church of Scotland but the Catholic Church is universal so the correct terminology should be ‘the Catholic Church IN Scotland. If Mr Ball can’t get things like that correct how much can we trust anything else he says about the Catholic Church.
Alba, Catholic living in Scotland
As I posted earlier on this thread. Ball’s article is mostly a hit piece, with very little substance. Its ‘hits’ consist of quotes from others about the Pope, but little from the Pope directly. The article is not competent Journalism.
Yup. That it was. He should rewrite it.
This what the Pope said and what Tim Ball could not bring himself to show you.
“I don’t know if it is the only cause, but mostly, in great part, it is man who has slapped nature in the face,” he said. “We have in a sense taken over nature.”
From this, T Ball goes sideways.
Tim Tim Tim. His first 3 words were “I DON’t KNOW”
Why didn’t Tim Ball write out the quote?
Because this article is a hit piece and it works better for him if YOU ALL believe that the Pope said that global warming is man;’s fault.
Well the pope did not say that. Dr Ball, you owe us all a contrite apology for 1) misrepresenting the facts, and 2) then based on the lie, launching an ad homine attack on the church and its good science loving people.
Thought i’d seen everything… Alarmist liberals defending the pope! Priceless!!! Thank you God.
The Fourth Crusade is not understood by most. The Sack of Constantinople in 1204 was probably revenge for the Massacre of the Latins by the Byzantines in 1182. Attacks on the Orthodox were actually condemned by the Pope.