Guest opinion by Tom Quirk
Your Holiness:
April 27, 2015—As world leaders contemplate a climate agreement, many look to you for guidance. We commend you for your care for the earth and God’s children, especially the poor. With this letter we raise some matters of concern that we ask you to consider as you convey that guidance.
Much of the debate over environmental stewardship is rooted in a clash of worldviews, with conflicting doctrines of God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation. Unfortunately, that clash often works its way into the very conclusions of environmental science. Rather than a careful reporting of the best evidence, we get highly speculative and theory-laden conclusions presented as the assured results of science. In the process, science itself is diminished, and many well-meaning moral and religious leaders risk offering solutions based on misleading science. The effect, tragically, is that the very people we seek to help could be harmed instead.
This is especially tragic since science itself arose in Medieval Europe, the one culture nurtured for centuries in the Biblical picture of reality that encouraged the scientific endeavor. This truth is commonplace to a wide and diverse array of historians and philosophers of science. As Alfred North Whitehead elaborated:
The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that … there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind? … It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.
…
In Whitehead’s estimation, other religions’ ideas of a god or gods could not sustain such an understanding of the universe. On their presuppositions, any “occurrence might be due [as with animism or polytheism] to the fiat of an irrational despot” or [as with pantheism and atheist materialism] “some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the same confidence as [with Biblical theism] in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.”[1]
In short, the Biblical worldview launched science as a systematic endeavor to understand the real world by a rigorous process of testing hypotheses by real-world observation. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman explained “the key to science” this way:
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.[2]
That statement, simple yet profound and absolutely essential to the practice of genuine science, follows necessarily—and only—from the Biblical worldview.
Christian and Jewish scholars have performed high-quality science for centuries. They are confident that good science leads toward and will not conflict with the truth about God and man. That is why there is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and why for centuries there have been science faculties in thousands of Jewish and Christian colleges and universities around the world.
As people of Biblical faith, then, we have a commitment not only to truth, but also to the practice of science as one path to truth. Today, when scientists run complex climate models on powerful computers to simulate immeasurably more complex natural systems like the earth’s climate, we must not forget our commitment to truth or that “key to science.” Our models can become “seductive simulations,” as sociologist of science Myanna Lahsen put it,[3] with the modelers, other scientists, the public, and policymakers easily forgetting that the models are not reality but must be tested by it. If their output disagrees with observation, the models, not nature, must be corrected.
Alongside good science in our approach to climate policy must be two preferential options: for humanity and, among humanity, for the poor. By this we do not mean to pit humanity against nature, any more than to pit the poor against the rich. Rather, we mean that because humanity alone bears the imago Dei, any effort to protect the environment must put at its center human well-being, and in particular the well-being of the poor, because they are the more vulnerable, the less able to protect themselves. As King David wrote, “Blessed is he who considers the poor! The Lord delivers him in the day of trouble” (Psalm 41:1, RSV). Good climate policy must recognize human exceptionalism, the God-given call for human persons to “have dominion” in the natural world (Genesis 1:28), and the need to protect the poor from harm, including actions that hinder their ascent out of poverty.
Today many prominent voices call humanity a scourge on our planet, saying that man is the problem, not the solution. Such attitudes too often contaminate their assessment of man’s effects on nature. Naively claiming “the science is settled,” they demand urgent action to protect the planet from catastrophic, human-induced global warming. Attributing allegedly unnatural warming to the use of fossil fuels to obtain energy essential for human flourishing, these voices demand that people surrender their God-given dominium, even if doing so means remaining in or returning to poverty.
Your concern for genuine science and for the poor requires a more cautious approach, one that carefully considers the scientific evidence regarding the real, not merely the theoretical, effects of human action on global climate, and carefully considers energy technology and economics in seeking to protect the poor from harm. Therefore we hope and trust that your guidance to world leaders will build on the following:
The Imago Dei and Man’s Dominion
Severe poverty, widespread hunger, rampant disease, and short life spans were the ordinary condition of humankind until the last two-and-a-half centuries. These tragedies are normal when—as much of the environmental movement prefers—human beings, bearing the imago Dei, live, and are treated, as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning (Genesis 1:28). Such dominion should express not the abusive rule of a tyrant but the loving and purposeful rule of our Heavenly King. It should thus express itself by enhancing the fruitfulness, beauty, and safety of the earth, to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors.
How Societies Overcome Poverty
What has delivered much of humanity from absolute material poverty is a combination of moral, social, political, scientific, and technological institutions. These include science and technology grounded on a view of the physical world as an ordered cosmos that rational creatures can understand and harness for human betterment; private property rights, entrepreneurship, and widespread trade, protected by the rule of law enforced by limited and responsive governments; and abundant, affordable, reliable energy generated from high-density, portable, constantly accessible fossil and nuclear fuels. By replacing animal and human muscle and low-density energy sources like wood, dung, and other biofuels, and low-density, intermittent wind and solar, fossil and nuclear fuels have freed people from the basic tasks of survival to devote time and bodily energy to other occupations.
Empirical Evidence Suggests that Fossil Fuel Use Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming
Many fear that fossil fuel use endangers humanity and the environment because it leads to historically unprecedented, dangerous global warming. This has led many well-meaning people to call for reduced carbon dioxide emissions and hence reduced use of fossil fuels.
Computer climate models of the warming effect of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide are the basis for that fear. However, for models to contribute validly to decision making, they must be subordinate to data, and there has been a growing divergence between real-world temperature observations and model simulations. On average, models simulate more than twice the observed warming over the relevant period. Over 95% of the models simulate greater warming than has been observed, and only a tiny percentage come tolerably close. None simulated the complete absence of observed warming over approximately the last 16 (according to UAH satellite data) to 26 (according to RSS lower tropospheric data) years.[4] The data confirm the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) observation that we are currently experiencing an absence of global warming long enough to be nearly impossible to reconcile with the models. All of this makes it increasingly clear that the models greatly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The models’ errors are not random—as often above as below observed temperatures, and by similar magnitudes—but clearly biased, consistently above observed temperatures.
The scientific method demands that theories be tested by empirical observation. By that test, the models are wrong. They therefore provide no rational basis to forecast dangerous human-induced global warming, and therefore no rational basis for efforts to reduce warming by restricting the use of fossil fuels or any other means.
For the Foreseeable Future, Wind and Solar Energy Cannot Effectively Replace Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Energy
Wind and solar energy, because of their higher costs and lower efficiency, account for only a few percent of total global energy use. Fossil fuels, because of their lower costs and higher efficiency, account for over 85%. Substituting low-density, intermittent energy sources like wind and solar for high-density, constant energy sources like fossil fuels would be catastrophic to the world’s poor. It would simultaneously raise the cost and reduce the reliability and availability of energy, especially electricity. This, in turn, would raise the cost of all other goods and services, since all require energy to produce and transport. It would slow the rise of the poor out of poverty. It would threaten to return millions of others to poverty. And it would make electricity grids unstable, leading to more frequent and widespread, costly and often fatal, brownouts and blackouts—events mercifully rare in wealthy countries but all too familiar to billions of people living in countries without comprehensive, stable electric grids supplied by stable fossil or nuclear fuels.
The Poor Would Suffer Most from Attempts to Restrict Affordable Energy Use
The world’s poor will suffer most from such policies. The poorest—the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year—will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences. The marginal in the developed world, who on average spend two or more times as much of their incomes on energy as the middle class, will lose access to decent housing, education, health care, and more as their energy costs rise. Some will freeze to death because they will be unable to pay their electricity bills and still buy enough food. Tens of thousands died even in the United Kingdom in several recent winters due to Britain’s rush to substitute wind and solar for coal to generate electricity.
Affordable Energy Can Help Millions of the World’s Poor Emerge from Poverty
While the computer climate models exaggerate the warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they plausibly simulate that greater economic development driven by growing use of fossil fuels will add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Consequently, Working Group 3 of the IPCC finds that the warmest scenarios for the future are also the richest, especially for those societies that are now the poorest. The risks of poverty and misguided energy policies that would prolong it far outweigh the risks of climate change. Adequate wealth enables human persons to thrive in a wide array of climates, hot or cold, wet or dry. Poverty undermines human thriving even in the very best of climates. It follows that reducing fossil fuel use means reducing economic development, condemning poor societies to remain poor, and requiring poor people of today to sacrifice for the sake of richer people of the future—a clear injustice.
Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Enhances Plant Growth
While adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causes far less warming than previously feared, it has a positive effect on plant life. With more carbon dioxide in the air, plants grow better in warmer and cooler temperatures and wetter and drier soils, make better use of soil nutrients, and resist diseases and pests better, increasing their fruit production, expanding their range, and greening the earth. This makes more food available to all other creatures, especially—as agricultural yields rise, making food more affordable—the world’s poor. Substituting wind, solar, and other low-density energy sources for coal, oil, and natural gas therefore hurts the poor not only by raising energy (and all other) prices but also by reducing food production. It also hurts the rest of life on earth by depriving it of the fertilizing effect of heightened carbon dioxide.
Truly, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). By using fossil fuels to generate energy to lift billions of God’s precious children out of poverty, we liberate from the tomb of the earth the carbon dioxide on which plants and therefore all the rest of life depend. This beautifully reveals the Creator’s wisdom and care for all of His creation—people, animals, plants, and the earth itself.
In light of these considerations, we believe it is both unwise and unjust to adopt policies requiring reduced use of fossil fuels for energy. Such policies would condemn hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings to ongoing poverty. We respectfully appeal to you to advise the world’s leaders to reject them.
[1] Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, [1925] 1967), 13, 12, 13, cited in Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York: Random House, 2005), 14–15. Loren Eiseley, likewise, wrote that “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.” (Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958; reprinted, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961], 62, cited in Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994], 18.) Similarly, Pierre Duhem observed that “the mechanics and physics of which modern times are justifiably proud proceed, by an uninterrupted series of scarcely perceptible improvements, from doctrines professed in the heart of the medieval schools.” (Cited in David C. Lindbergh and Robert S. Westman, eds., Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], 14, via Pearcey and Thaxton, Soul of Science, 53.)
[2] Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1965), 4, emphasis added.
[3] Myanna Lahsen, “Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution around Climate Models,”Social Studies of Science 35/6 (December 2005), 895–922.
[4] C.P. Morice, J.J. Kennedy, N.A. Rayner, and P.D. Jones, “Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset,” Journal of Geophysical Research (2012), 117, D08101, doi:10.1029/2011JD017187; Ross R. McKitrick, “HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series,” Open Journal of Statistics 4 (2014), 527–535, doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
Endorsers of “An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change”
1. Fr. E. Paul Acton, M.Div./S.T.B. (Divinity/Theology), Reverend Father, Roman Catholic Church, Canada
2. Robert V. Acuff, Ph.D. (Nutritional Biochemistry), Professor of Surgery, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Mountain Home, TN, USA
3. Michael W. Asten, Ph.D. (Geophysics), Professor of Geophysics, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
4. William D. Balgord, Ph.D. (Geochemistry), President, Environmental & Resources Technology, Inc., Middleton, WI, USA
5. Tim Ball, Ph.D. (Geography), Professor of Climatology (retired), University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
6. Stephen M. Barr, Ph.D. (Physics), Fellow of the American Physical Society, Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
7. Joseph M. Bastardi, B.S. (Meteorology), Chief meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics, Boalsburg, PA, USA
8. Gary L. Bauer, J.D., President, American Values, Arlington, VA, USA
9. E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. (History), Founder and National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Burke, VA, USA
10. Edwin X. Berry, Ph.D. (Physics), President, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, USA
11. Prince Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza, J.D., author of Psicose Ambientalista (Environmental Madness), Director of Paz no Campo, Brazil
12. Donna Fitzpatrick Bethell, B.A. (Physics), Juris Doctor, Chairman of the Board, Christendom College, former United States Under Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, and Director, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Fairfax, VA, USA
13. David L. Black, Ph.D., (Legal Medicine: Forensic Toxicology), Clinical Associate Professor/CEO/Founder/Chairman, Vanderbilt University/Aegis Sciences Corporation, Nashville, TN, USA
14. Rev. Jeffrey K. Boer, D.Min. (Practical Theology), Pastor of Sharon Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Hialeah, FL, USA
15. Kevin Boling, Pastor, Mountain Bridge Bible Fellowship, Host, Knowing The Truth Radio Program, Greenville, SC, USA
16. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (Applied Philosophy, Specialization Environmental Ethics), Research Fellow, The Heartland Institute, Rowlette, TX, USA
17. Xavier Calmet, Ph.D. (Dr. rer. nat., Physics), Professor of Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, UK
18. James E. Campbell, Ph.D. (Physics), Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, Sandia National Laboratories, Retired, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
19. Joseph L. Campbell, Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Professor, University of North Florida, Retired, FL, USA
20. Davis Carman, M.S. (Mechanical Engineering), President, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Anderson, IN, USA
21. Ronald S. Carson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), Adjunct Professor, Engineering, Seattle Pacific University, Renton, WA, USA
22. Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. (Geology), Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Australia
23. Kevin L. Clauson, M.A., J.D., Vice President of Academics and Professor of Government and Law, Director, Center for Faith, Freedom, and Constitution, Bryan College, Dayton, TN, USA
24. Charles A. Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), Th.M. (Old Testament and Semitics), Retired Chief, U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Adjunct Professor, Chafer Theological Seminary, Bel Air, MD, USA
25. Roger W. Cohen, Ph.D. (Physics), Fellow, American Physical Society, Durango, CO, USA
26. Mark Coppenger, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Professor of Christian Apologetics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, USA
27. Kenneth A. Cornelius, M.S. (Environmental Engineering), Senior Program Manager, Argonne National Laboratory (Retired); Former Director Environmental Policy, Office of Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health; Former Asst. Professor of Civil Engineering, US Air Force Academy, Retired, USA
28. Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. (Communication Theory), Executive Director, World Congress of Families–IX, Rockford, IL, USA
29. Walter Cunningham, M.S. (Physics), Apollo 7 Astronaut, Houston, TX, USA
30. Joseph D’Aleo, B.S., M.S. (Meteorology), ABD (Air Resources), Honorary Ph.D., Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics LLC, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Hudson, NH, USA
31. Willem de Lange, Ph.D. (Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
32. William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (Mathematics), Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, Pella, IA, USA
33. Trey Dimsdale, J.D., Associate Director and Research Fellow, The Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX, USA
34. Harold H. Doiron, Ph.D., Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Pearland, TX, USA
35. Paul K. Driessen, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Fairfax, VA, USA
36. Robert Du Broy, B.S. (Biology), MBA, Catholic Media Consultant, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
37. Duane A. Dunham, Th.D. (New Testament), Professor (Retired) of New Testament Language and Exegesis, Western Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Portland, OR, USA
38. Becky Norton Dunlop, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (1988–1989), Chairman, Conservative Action Project, Washington, DC, USA
39. Gordon Evans, B.S. (Meteorology), M.S. (Soil Science), Environmental Manager, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, USA
40. Freeman J. Dyson, B.A. (Mathematics), Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
41. Miguel A. Flores-Vergara, Ph.D. (Plant Molecular Biology), Post-doctoral Researcher, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
42. Captain Donald K. Forbes, USN (Retired), M.S. (Aero Engineering), Dumfries, VA, USA
43. Neil Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Former Director, National Hurricane Center, Fulshear, TX, USA
44. Martin Fricke, Ph.D. (Nuclear Physics), Senior Fellow and Elected to 15-Member Executive Panel on Public Affairs of the American Physical Society, Extraordinary Member of the Catholic Diocese of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
45. Gordon Fulks, Ph.D. (Physics), University of Chicago Laboratory for Astrophysics, Mission Research Corporation, Corbett, OR, USA
46. George Gamota, Ph.D. (Physics), former Bell Labs MTS; former Director for Office of Defense Research (U.S. Department of Defense); former Professor of Physics, University of Michigan; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Physical Society; Lexington, MA, USA
47. Paul W. Gard, Jr., M.A. (Management), B.A. (Mathematics/Meteorology), NOAA, National Weather Service Lead Forecaster Denver/Boulder, Retired, CO, USA
48. George Gilder, A.B., Honorary Ph.D. (Economics), Universidad Francisco Maroquin; co-founder and Senior Fellow on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality, The Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA; Editor in Chief of Gilder Technology Forum, Great Barrington, MA; former Fellow, Kennedy Institute of Politics, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
49. Rainer Gladisch, Ph.D., Director, Professor Doctor, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
50. Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. (Agricultural Sciences), Climate Policy Advisor, Asociacion Rural del Paraguay, Filadelfia, Chaco, Paraguay
51. Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D. (Astronomy), Professor, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
52. Rev. George Grant, Ph.D. (Philosophy), D.Hum. (Humanities), Director, Chalmers Fund and the King’s Meadow Study Center, Founder, New College Franklin, Pastor, Parish Presbyterian Church, Franklin, TN, USA
53. William M. Gray, Ph.D. (Geophysical Sciences), Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
54. William P. Green III, M.Div., Executive Secretary, Confraternidad Latinoamericana de Iglesias Reformadas, Costa Rica,
55. Wayne Grudem, Ph.D. (New Testament), Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary, Phoenix, AZ, USA
56. Kenneth Haapala, M.S. (Quantitative Economics), President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Fairfax, VA, USA
57. William Happer, Ph.D. (Physics), Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (Emeritus), Princeton University, and former Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Fellow of the American Physical Society, Princeton, NJ, USA
58. Jeffrey E. Haymond, Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor of Economics, Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH, USA
59. Ron Heffield, M.A. (Ministry), Reverend, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Orlando, FL, USA
60. Thomas A. Hemphill, Ph.D. (Business Administration, Strategic Management & Public Policy), Associate Professor of Strategy, Innovation and Public Policy, School of Management, University of Michigan, Flint, MI, and Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, USA
61. Stephen Henderson, Th.M., Pastor, Munich International Community Church, Eichenau, Germany
62. Thomas D. Hennigan, M.P.S. (Environmental and Forest Biology/Ecology), Associate Professor of Organism Biology, Biology Degree Program Coordinator, and Chair, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, GA, USA
63. Robert G. Houston Jr., Ph.D. (Economics), Professor, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA
64. Senator Nancy Jacobs, Retired State Senator, Maryland State Senate, USA
65. Peter Jones, Ph.D. (New Testament), Professor of New Testament (retired), Westminster Theological Seminary; Founder and President, truthXchange, Escondido, CA, USA
66. Klaus L.E. Kaiser, Ph.D. (Dr. Rerum Naturalium, Chemistry), Research Scientist, Natl. Water Research Inst. (Canada, retired), Fellow, Chemical Institute of Canada, author of Convenient Myths, Ontario, Canada
67. Richard Keen, Ph.D. (Climatology/Geography), Instructor Emeritus, University of Colorado, Retired, Golden, CO, USA
68. Hugh Kendrick, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), Member, American Physical Society, Anacortes, WA, USA
69. Madhav L. Khandekar, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Research Scientist, Environment Canada (Retired), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
70. William R. Kininmonth, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), M.Admin. (Public Policy), former Head, National Climate Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Lieutenant—Victoria Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem; Kew, Australia
71. Bill Kirk, B.S. (Earth & Atmospheric Sciences), CEO & Founder, Weather Trends International, Inc., Bethlehem, PA, USA
72. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President, American Alliance of Jews and Christians, Mercer Island, WA, USA
73. David Legates, Ph.D. (Climatology), Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
74. David H. Lester, Ph.D. (Chemical Engineering), Retired, Fox Island, WA, USA
75. Mark Liebe, Ph.D. (Water Resources Engineering), P.E., Supervising Engineering, City of Portland, OR, USA
76. Wiliiam H. Light, Ph.D. (Organismic Biology and Geosciences); 2-year postdoctoral fellowship (Limnology & Environmental Toxicology), Research Associate, California Academy of Sciences, California, USA
77. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Newton, MA, USA
78. Stephen D. Livesay, Ph.D. (History and Education), President, Bryan College, Dayton, TN, USA
79. E.G. “Jay” Link, M.Div., President, Stewardship Ministries, Camby, IN, USA
80. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Science), Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
81. Jeffrey Mahn, M.S. (Nuclear Engineering), Sandia National Laboratories, Retired, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
82. Istvan E. Marko, Ph.D. (Sciences), Professor Doctor, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium,
83. Francis J. Menton, Jr., J.D. (Law), Of Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, USA
84. Luiz Carlos Molion, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Professor of Climatology and Climate Change at the Universidad Federal de Alagoas, Maceió – AL, Brazil; representative of Latin America at the World Meteorological Organization, Brazil
85. Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, Chief Policy Adviser, Science & Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA
86. William G. Moore, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC, USA
87. Steven Mosher, M.S. (Biological Oceanography), President, Population Research Institute, Front Royal, VA, USA
88. Dermott J. Mullan, Ph.D. (Astronomy), Professor of Astrophysics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
89. Mark Musser, M.Div., Pastor/Missionary, Grace Redeemer Bible Church, Olympia, WA, USA
90. Daniel W. Nebert, M.S. (Biophysics), M.D. (Medicine/Genetics), Professor Emeritus, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Wilsonville, OR, USA
91. C. Preston Noell III, President of Tradition, Family, Property, Inc., Hanover, PA, USA
92. Daniela de Souza Onça, Ph.D. (Geography), Professor of Geography at Santa Catarina State University, Brazil
93. Jerry F. O’Neill, D.D. (Divinity), M.S. (Education), President and Professor of Pastoral Theology, Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
94. William David Orr, Baccalaureus (Universita Pontificia di San Tommaso d’Aquino), Fellow, Naturalclimatechange.com., Denver, CO, USA
95. Franklin E. Payne, M.D., Associate Professor of Family Medicine (Retired), Medical College of Georgia, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA, USA
96. James M. Peacock, B.S. (Mechanical Engineering), Member of Climate Study Team, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Brenham, TX, USA
97. Aldara Gandara Peacock, B.S. (Biology), The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, Brenham, TX, USA
98. Ricki Pepin, Author, Lecturer, Instructor, Institute on the Constitution, Springfield, OH, USA
99. Mark J. Perry, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of Economics, University of Michigan, Flint, MI, and Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, USA
100. Al Pino, M.Th., Pastor, Palm Vista Community Church, Miami Lakes, FL, USA
101. Joseph A. Pipa Jr., Ph.D. (Historical Theology), President, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Greenville, SC, USA
102. Tom Quirk Ph.D. (Physics), Visiting Fellow, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
103. Greg Raab, Diplom (Mineralogie)/MS (Mineralogy), Environmental Scientist III, State of Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection, Las Vegas, NV, USA
104. Frank L. Rice, Ph.D. (Neuroscience), President, CEO, and Chief Scientist, Integrated Tissue Dynamics, LLC, Rensselaer, NY, USA
105. Jay W. Richards, Ph.D. (Philosophy & Theology), Assistant Research Professor, The Catholic University of America, Potomac Falls, VA, USA
106. Shawn Ritenour, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of Economics, Grove City College, Grove City, PA, USA
107. Bart Roosen, Ph.D. (Economics), Berlicum, Netherlands
108. Austin Ruse, President, Center for Family and Human Rights, Washington, DC, USA
109. James H. Rust, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology (retired), Atlanta, GA, USA
110. Anthony J. Sadar, M.S. (Environmental Science—Air Pollution Control), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Adjunct Associate Professor, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
111. Dr. John R. Sans, Ph.D. (Geochemistry), Research Chemist, BASF, Independence, Ohio, USA
112. Richard L. Sauer, P.E., M.S. (Environmental Engineering), Spacecraft Life Support Systems Lead Engineer, NASA, League City, TX, USA
113. Rick Scarborough, President, Vision America Action, Nacogdoches, TX, USA
114. Corey Schmatjen, M.A. (International Development), Pastor, Palm Vista Community Church, Miami Lakes, FL, USA
115. Robert F. Schwarzwalder, Jr., M.A. (Theology), Former Chief of Staff to a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee; Senior Vice-President, Family Research Council, Washington, DC, USA
116. John Sciacca, M.S. (Geology, Emphasis Precipitation Variation) Director, Nevada Water Science Center, USGS, Carson City, NV, USA
117. John A. Shanahan, Ph.D. (Engineering), President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA, Denver, CO, USA
118. Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. (Physics), Science and Environmental Policy Project, and Director, Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology, Deer Park, MD, USA
119. David E. Shormann, Ph.D. (Aquatic Science), President, DIVE, LLC, TX, USA
120. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Physics), Founder, Science and Environmental Policy Project; Founder, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change; first director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Arlington, VA, USA
121. Mike Spaulding, Ph.D., Pastor, Calvary Chapel of Lima, Lima, OH, USA
122. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville AL, USA
123. Larry H. Stallard, M.Div., Pastor, Presbyterian Church in America, Retired, Kingsport, Tennessee, USA
124. Richard F. Storm, PE (Professional Engineer), Founder/Senior Consultant, Storm Technologies, Inc., Albermarle, NC, USA
125. Stanford Swim, M.B.A. (Business), Interim President, Sutherland Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
126. Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor of Economics, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA
127. James Tonkowich, D.Min., Author, Former President, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Falls Church, VA, USA
128. Mark Tooley, B.A. (Government), President, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Washington, DC, USA
129. C. Joseph Touhill, Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering), PE, DEE, President, Touhill Technology Management; Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists; Institute Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers; Life Member, Water Environment Federation; Life Member, American Water Works Association; Jamison, PA, USA
130. Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D. (Agricultural and Resource Economics), Professor of Economics and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, BC, Canada
131. Lou Veiga, M.B.A, M.Div., Senior Pastor, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Houston, TX, USA
132. L.L. “Don” Veinot, Jr., President, Midwest Christian Outreach, Wonder Lake, IL, USA.
133. James P. Wallace III, Ph.D. (Economics; Minor in Engineering), President & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC, Sarasota, FL, USA
134. Lance Arthur Wallace, Ph.D. (Astrophysics), Research Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Retired, Santa Rosa, California, USA
135. Kathleen Hartnett White, M.A. (Humanities), Distinguished Senior Fellow and Director, Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, TX, USA
136. Christopher Westley, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of Economics, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL USA
137. R. Fowler White, Ph.D., Pastor, Valley Presbyterian Church, Lutherville, MD, USA
138. Scott Winter, B.S. (Mechanical Engineering), Senior Aerospace Engineer, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA
139. Wendy Wright, Vice President, Center for Family and Human Rights, Washington, DC, USA
140. Carlton S. Yee, Ph.D. (Hydrology & Engineering), Professor Emeritus, Humboldt State University, Meridian, Idaho, USA
141. Elizabeth Yore, J.D., International Child Advocate Counsel, Chicago, Illinois
142. John Zmirak, Ph.D. (English Literature), Senior Editor, The Stream, co-author, The Race to Save Our Century: Five Core Principles to Promote Peace, Freedom, and a Culture of Life, Dallas, TX, USA
Perhaps I missed something, but how can I add my name to the endorsement list?
here – scroll down
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2015/04/27/an-open-letter-to-pope-francis-on-climate-change/
Burn baby burn!!
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/China-Pollution.JPEG-0bfec-555×370.jpg
A person who has buried two children due to lack of resources (food, energy, etc) would prefer they were alive and wearing masks.
Have a heart.
Do those masks work to filter CO2?
Dawtgtomis: They needn’t filter out CO2, since CO2 even at 20 times ambient atmospheric concentration (ca. 400 ppm) is perfectly safe. CO2 is nontoxic and becomes dangerous only at levels well above 10,000 ppm not because of toxicity but because it crowds out needed oxygen.
Oops’ forgot to include a /sarc tag. My point was that the pollution pictured was not CO2.
I would like to send him this poem:
To The Pope
Those who would be global planners,
Speak in agitated manners.
Predicating great disaster:
“Climate change we now must master”.
Human fault and shame beseeching
“Children, guilt we should be teaching!
Man has sinned, by overreaching
Mother Nature’s limit!”
Those of true theology
I’ve never known, who cannot see;
This world does not belong to ye,
Who only live here in it.
This planet then is God’s alone-
Commanding elements He owns,
Perplexing mortal-man’s control,
And vexing now the Papal Soul.
Well put.
From one theology to another.
As stated, in the Christian Ethos there is room for science and compassion.
Atributes strangely lacking in the UN IPCC ™ scatology.
i think we can safely observe that both science and compassion are missing in essence from Ms. Figueres’s agenda.
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
Father Paul, then reblog this:
“The poorest—the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year…”
I am not happy to see the plight of the poor abused to sell any agenda, climate or environmental.
That figure of “4 million” is the output of a model that has as inputs another model that uses numbers from models until there is nothing left to model.
Show me the bodies.
It was 4 million DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years) and turned into ‘deaths’ somewhere along the line. It is being used to raise vast sums of money.
The true number is about 430,000 not 4,000,000 and I believe rates well below malaria, for example. That does not make air clean nor smoke disappear, but exaggeration is not necessary in order to do something effective about it. There are many options for dealing with the domestic energy needs of the poor.
There is a growing cancer of cause-ism where the cause du jour or cause most-celebe has to have the most people dying from it, like climate change which is always tied to massive piles of non-existent climate-dead.
The goal is course is money, lots of it. As with all things environmental, there are multiple hidden agendas behind each ‘unprecedented’ claim.
If you can add this:
Stay out of bedrooms (for that matter backseats).
Stay out of medical facilities and offices.
Get rid of Sharia-ish Catholic anti-female rules.
The rest of the stuff is fine but makes little difference to me.
I was in Assisi a few years ago with my brother Mike. Sitting in an outdoor cafe (very recommended) we met a very nice couple – a Czech mathematician and his German wife — very charming people.
Up into the conversation came the Catholic Church not allowing women to be priests. He said, ‘I approve, women should not be allowed to be priests.’
And just as my charge started lighting up he continued, ‘They just haven’t gone far enough. They should not allow men to be priests, either.’
“Of course!,” I shouted. It was a moment of triumph. The entire problem: solved! 🙂
Thought you’d enjoy the story, Pamela. 🙂
Who are “They”?
Now that’s funny right there!!!
I was raised Catholic. I still have my glow in the dark rosary and my First Communion obligatory picture, taken within a minute of me donning that white dress, veil, socks, and shoes. I had a tendency to not stay clean when I was 7 so pictures had to be taken immediately. I also remember my Confirmation day. I flat out told my grandma I wouldn’t kiss no ring and I wouldn’t let the man slap me on my cheek and if he was insisting to do those things, I was not going. Grandma managed to convince the Bishop not to present his ring for me to kiss and for god’s sake don’t slap the girl. She could come up swinging.
Pamela, ever heard of humility? Old age will either teach you some or make you bitter. I wish you a very long life and an opportunity for some (more?) humility. It is the opposite of pride and vanity. This I have learned through getting old, against all odds, I might add.
The U.S. RC church is a unique RC church. It does not receive state support and its education system is private as far basic funding goes. So quite different than the European and Latin American churches are.
So the nature of the U.S. RC church should be taken into consideration before important decisions such as this are made.
Do they pay taxes?
Very good article. I might add that God told Adam to go forth and multiply, knowing that he had designed a system that was symbiotic and robust. More life generates more CO2 which generates more life. Plants are currently if anything CO2 deprived.
Yes, they are indeed. Consequently I like this quote best:
“By using fossil fuels to generate energy to lift billions of God’s precious children out of poverty, we liberate from the tomb of the earth the carbon dioxide on which plants and therefore all the rest of life depend.”
So, if anything, burning fossil fuels is not a sin but actually a very good action and therefore quite advisable even for catholics… 😉
It’s time to start a carbon liberation movement to make sure that Life on Earth will survive the coming CO2 concentration minima of the next ice ages…
I read on some science site that the Pleistocene Ice Age, which started 2.6 million years ago, ended 11,000 years ago. Ended? Someone should tell his Holiness that the Pleistocene Ice Age will resume shortly, and that CO2 will probably drop below 150 ppm and plants won’t grow, so nothing to eat, folks. His Holiness and all the deluded scientists might like to think about that.
Carbon Liberation Movement! I like that Popular Front for the Excitation of Neutrons could support them.
“An open letter to Pope Francis”??????????????????
My bubble burst long ago, I no longer give a damn about this drivel. Its all an act, confusion……deception. The Pope!! give me a break. That pseudo man………that……….whatever corporate occult vampire blood sucking tick. That’s right folks- TICK!!
Enough of him and all that bushwa.
I’ve seen and heard of to many people getting hurt by the very people who detest God in the first place.
Freak wizard!!
Hear, hear!
The concept of all monotheism is a crock of bullldust.
The only thing that needs to be recognised here is the power exerted over those minions that still follow this creed.
As for appealing to papal or sharian “law” as a rational process or being, you are merely “following the sandal” (apologies to Monty Python).
. “Follow the money” is the only way to an ethical understanding, not reams of apologetic nonsensical attempts to prove truth and monotheism religions are intertwined – they are not.
All that crap is based upon a belief that a single, all powerful entity has a plan with punishment or reward as the outcome.
When people have to resort to using terms like ‘bulldust’ and ‘crap’ you know it’s unlikely that they are going to say anything rational or sensible.
Yup,
The biggest challenge I could imagine in life is addressing one of my fellow humans as “your holiness” and keeping a straight face.
I feel sorry for you both. Just saying.
Please, do everyone a favor, no more posts on The Pope or Vatican, or their agents/corporations. Please dude….please no more.
Send letters to your grandmother instead, geeeez.
@kenin, ahhhhhh, so you are the self proclaimed speaker for everybody ?
I’m not making any such claim. Don’t get it twisted.
I find your response to mind post rather peculiar.
What is it you would miss from not having Vatican related bull shoved down your throat twice a week?
Avert your eyes, so that you will not be forced to read that which bothers you so much.
Great content, distinguished support, how can his Holiness refuse?
Yet he will. It is a futile effort.
Um, isn’t there the old Biblical line that one should render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are God’s? Is that a really hard thing for this pope to understand? Or, does he think the UN equates to some kind of god?
Now, I’m understanding that this childless, never been a dad pope, is in favor of spanking children so as to discipline them. I’ll admit to also being in favor of spanking (but only between consenting adults). But if the left wants us to listen to this guy on climate change, well then, they better be prepared to listen to him on everything. (And, I suspect his version of spanking certainly does not involve consenting adults.)
Very well written Mr. Quirk.
. . . but too long. A greater impact (if possible) may be had with fewer words.
zero for two . man made global warming and Islam is a religion of peace.
People who blindly follow APGW are more political than they want to believe, and the Pope’s foray into this area is no different in my view. The Pope, as does our President, has a very fundamental unwavering view of redistribution as a political goal. For him, and for Obama, and those high up in the UN, its their life objective, and it’s about the means to get there. APGW is the means. The letter is well written but unfortunately, until you change his view on redistribution and socialism, facts don’t matter. But I applaud anyone for the effort.
I fear that you are right on the money. It seems to me that this pope is spending all his good will in one misguided moment atop world headlines. It is frightening that Leftists can have so much influence in Vatican City.
Theo, let’s just wait and see. If the pope goes deep green – and I doubt he will – I’m off to the nearest Greek or Russian orthodox church. I think he knows that.
The Pope and Obama, yeah, redistribute. The UN Bureaucrats believe in take care of number [one] first, there’ll still be enough left over for the peons.
Neither group understands what really makes the economy work-free markets, capital(self denial), private property, and rule of law.
A good beginning for the Vatican would be to recognize that the oceans make temperatures change, and have long done so.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/empirical-evidence-oceans-make-climate/
If the seas can be “parted”, surely the seas can be thermally controlled.
“Kill all Humans”
Thanks, Bubba Cow
The King and The Pope have always been one.
The King and The Pope=Agenda 21
Agenda 21= theft
Theft of property. Property is absolutely essential, otherwise your just a person or in person.
And you know God is no respecter of persons. He told you so.
So what’s my point you ask.
Well, ask yourself this: Is it just possible that the work of Satan is rooted in the Vatican itself?
After all, they are the worlds first corporation/person
Nice letter. Very thorough, and many erudite signers.
It’s much simpler than that.
The science is wrong.
And when people point that out, the scientific establishment refuses to debate, and instead tries to hide the evidence.
That is a sin – indeed, many sins are being compounded in the continuous but ever-less-believable call by climate scientists to stop looking at our evidence and instead undertake the dangerous, damaging and physically-impossible task of de-energising our society.
As the Pope, are you against sin, or for it? Is it expedient that a little sinning be done for the benefit of the Climate Scientists?
I believe your organisation is already on record as answering “Yes” and “No” respectively to those two questions…
Dodgey Geezer, On all things, one must have an informed conscience and then act in accordance with that informed conscience. I doubt that they are truly informed. I doubt they are acting out of malice, rather the UN and its liars are successfully undermining the good will of many good people by supplying false information.
It would seem the sin is in ignoring the findings of science, and using as a reason that one ‘believes’ it’s all a universal (Worldwide) conspiracy, even though the ‘believer’ never submitted his own findings for peer-review, or never seen anyone else publish such contradictory evidence. Could it be that such ‘beliefs’ that Science is ‘wrong’ are suspect, and lack evidentiary support? Hmmmm…..
Warrenlb
There is nothing ‘universal’ about the conspiracies that underlie the CAGW movement. There is plenty of published science that is peer reviewed that shows there is nothing unusual, untoward, dangerous or unprecedented about global temperatures and the CO2 concentration.
The problem with ‘beliefs’ is that a small group of self-interested advocates have managed to fake a vast number pseudoscientific claims about the descent of Hell onto the Earth because of our mortal sin of releasing carbon dioxide. It is nothing less than a fake religion shaking Juju sticks at smoke.
It would be laughable if it didn’t cause so much harm.
The lack of evidentiary support, as you call it, is why I refuse to be sucked into the nether world of climate alarmism. Go to the data. Look at the evidence. It is not getting warmer, there is no catastrophe, the environment can be cleaned, improved, protected, cherished and even honoured without a single scrap of fire and damnation alarmism over CO2.
We haven’t yet seen what the encyclical contains. Until then I reserve judgement. But judgement there will be. Populism is no position for a Pope. Eschatology, climate seancé and doom-mongering ill-befit any of us.
@Crispin in Waterloo
You say:
“There is nothing ‘universal’ about the conspiracies that underlie the CAGW movement. There is plenty of published science that is peer reviewed that shows there is nothing unusual, untoward, dangerous or unprecedented about global temperatures and the CO2 concentration. ”
My response:
1. CAGW? There is no such term in Science. CAGW is an invention of those that reject the conclusions of Science. If you think you saw that term in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, please post it.
2. Nothing universal in the conspiracies? Sorry but logically ONLY a worldwide conspiracy can fill the bill of those complaining about fraud, since all the world’s Scientific Institutions conclude AGW, without exception.
3. There’s plenty of peer-reviewed science rejecting AGW? Sorry, the number is vanishingly small in comparison to the 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on AGW published: http://jamespowell.org/Piecharts/Citations/citations.html.
If you disagree with Dr Powell, then post those peer-reviewed papers you believe exist, please.
You say:
“Populism is no position for a Pope.”
My response:
I agree. But his position is not populism. It’s backed by science and scientists
Hmmm. The Pope is, by definition and job-description, God-centric; his Religion trumps science (it was created by God Himself); he worships a benevolent God. Such a God would not, surely, see the end of His creation. Therefore, mankind – believers – have nothing to fear as God will intrude and make our (their) climate as benign as it needs to be. A man of God has no need of science, he has faith. [/cyn]
The Vatican has no business being involved in this climate lie scheme, why are Catholics not demanding the Pope steer clear of this nonsense? Further, this Earth is billions of years old, then comes mankind who thinks so highly of itself as to be able to destroy this planet. Ridiculous. Ludicrous.
John,
This very letter (this article) is a polite attempt to do the very thing that you suggest.
Nay. I think I said it better.
For a time the Catholic Church used to sell INDULGENCES. they are kind of like carbon credits but had the Pope’s seal of approval to sin against God without fear of God’s Wrath. (I wonder how this is gonna work out for them on judgment day as they will not be standing in front of the Pope.)
This is the UN’s way of selling the same ability to sin against their Nature god for a price with the Popes seal of approval. Neither are Biblically grounded and both are ways the leaders had to extract money from its followers to their demise.
It is simply, one religion mimicking another….
Conflict of interests? It seems to me that the catholic church tells people not to use birth control, in other words have more babies, but then the opposite message is to reduce CO2 emissions, because having more kids is to have more CO2.
10
Wrong, Pamela. The Catholic Church doesn’t tell people not to use birth control; just use it according to the natural law.
The Billings Method works but there certainly are problems:
1. Females not on the contraceptive pill feel the greatest desire for sex pre-ovulation, yet that’s when the Billings Method requires couples to abstain from sex. The Billings (husband and wife) said OK so express your sexual love in other ways. Very hard advice, especially for young people.
2. Non-Catholics pooh-pooh it despite the health benefits for women who don’t have to pollute their bodies for decades with foreign substances while men don’t, do they.
Thanks, Tom Quirk.
I hope you will be heard.
As to the ancient sources of “Apocalypticism”, I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Between-Testaments-Pp-D-Russell/dp/0800618564/ref=sr_1_1/192-4366561-4828812?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431277639&sr=1-1&keywords=between+the+testaments
When you read this you find that “Apocalypticism” is thousands of years old. It seems to be a WEAKNESS of the human mind. Since most of the AWG crowd are agnostics, atheists, or “undeclared” (but of marginal, or zero “faith” background, they have turned the natural “religous” tendancy toward Apocalypticism to a secular one. In this case, as DAMAGING, evil, stupid and deplorable as the religious Apocalypticism is, so it is with the secular one. As an ENGINEER and a BUILDER (and later years a gardener!) I reject ALL aspects of it. Alas, the Pope has decided to embrace ALL manor of Apocalypticism…sad.
Until I see evidence that Pope Francis has decided to embrace all manner of Apocalypticism, I am skeptical.
I too am skeptical. I am an advocate of science and faith and reason.
Amen.
Seems many of the comments, remind me of what is put out in realclimate & sckepticalscience.
Amen to your point: Apocalyptic clap trap is something huge numbers of people just cannot get enough of.
You can tell it is bs when the underlying theme is that nature is progressive in its outlook.
I comment to you “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron for a more modern view of how clap trap has corrupted far too many of our intelligentsia and how this is costing each and everyone of us today.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Apocalyptics-Environmental-Politics-Controls/dp/0671605674
Few remember is was the resignation of Pop Benedict in 2013 that has made possible the installation of Pope Francis. The first Pope to resign of his own accord since 1294.
The 3rd prophecy of Fatima, only partially revealed, lays out the destruction of the Catholic Church, with Satan as its leader.
Big P obviously believes in one fairy story. What’s the big deal with believing in two?
Jorge Bergoglio, the man currently masquerading as “Pope” Francis, is no more a true pope of the Roman Catholic Church than you or I. He is a manifest heretic, as were his five predecessors before him. And since heresy of its own nature severs one from the faith, Bergoglio is no longer Catholic and cannot hold any valid office or exercise legitimate authority within the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has been in a state of Sede Vacante since the election of antipope John XXIII in 1958. The promulgation of the hideous accords of the Second Vatican Council, and the introduction of the invalid Mass (i.e. the Novus Ordo Missae) of Paul VI, have culminated in the, at first subtle, but now quite blatant substitution of transnational socialism for Christian doctrine.
Bergoglio is neither misguided nor ignorant about the true nature of his actions. He perceives quite well that the Warmist agenda is but one of the many organs that the the revolutionary left has used in its relentless campaigns to seize control of governmental bureaucracies and public expenditures. Bergoglio is aiding and abetting the Warmists for that very reason, because he is sympathetic to the revolution. He and his fellow heretic priests have co-opted the Church of Christ for this nefarious purpose, with hardly a word of dissent emanating from the overwhelming majority of so-called Catholics. That is why this letter will fall on deaf ears. However, his ability to do this would seriously diminish if people were to stop deferring to him as if he actually were the pope. It is easy to unmask Bergoglio and his ilk by insisting on truth in religious matters, on purity of doctrine, and on unbroken adherence to the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church, receiving the ancient teachings with the same spirit and the same acceptation as we were commanded to do, keeping inviolate the faith handed down by the Apostles.
The true Roman Catholic Church is the explicit guarantor of such truths, but Francis is not her head. Cf. Sedevacantism for those interested in further reading.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/index.htm
The Lefebvre-ists are no longer schismatics. So your objections may be out of date.
The SSPX were never Sedevacantists; they were, and remain, Recognize-and-Resisters.
Ok. You choose to resist. I get it. So. Who is the pope?
Pontificated horseshit. It’s just a bunch of boys in a clubhouse coming up with one stupid rule after another, including the “no girls allowed” one. Has been since they came up with idea of “Pope”.
the “no girls allowed” came out of a culture where the girls preferred to be the power behind the scenes. Let the little boys go out and play with the toys, we still have the upper hand.
In many cultures are different, but intertwined, often with the women having the final say in one way or another.
May be close, sadly, to the truth.
“That statement, simple yet profound and absolutely essential to the practice of genuine science, follows necessarily—and only—from the Biblical worldview.” Utter rubbish. Science owes nothing to a “biblical worldview” -whatever that might be. Science owes to the renaissance which led to the enlightenment and the move away from religion – a move sadly as yet incomplete. It owes to the rediscovery of greek science and philosophy and to the discovery of hindu and arab science and mathematics – mostly transmitted by muslim scholars at a time when the “biblical worldview” held the west in the thrall of the dark ages – a time of desperate poverty, ignorance, disease, superstition and magical fancy.
And in those enlightened realms of the Hindoo and the Arab, amongst those who rescued and clarified the incredible and perfect knowledge of the Greeks, there was no poverty, no ignorance, no disease, no superstition and no magical fancy? Friends, it is obvious what course we must take to true salvation. Forward to the past!
Strawman, strawman. Nobody wrote “there was no poverty, no ignorance, no disease, no superstition and no magical fancy” – but it might behoove you to read a little history.
Gee whiz chris, I have. Please explain why science took place in such a superstitious hell-hole such as you see Middle Age Europe and not in Hindustan or Arabia or even Byzantium. After all, no one imported the renaissance to Europe; it grew up on the existing civilization there. If the seeds came from the sacred Arabs and benighted Hindoo, they fell on fertile soil in one place, and that was in Europe.
Would you like some powder for that Whig? Your understanding of Western history seems not to derive from the facts but from triumphalist materialist propaganda. You might be surprised to learn that Greek philosophy was quite well known to the scholars of the so-called dark ages; and furthermore, that Greek philosophy itself harmonizes almost perfectly with the Biblical worldview you deride. The idea that the ancient learning was unknown in the West until fortuitously reintroduced by enlightened Islamic sages is very easy to disprove. The texts of Aristotle actually used by St. Thomas Aquinas were translated directly from the Greek by William of Moerbeke, with no intervening Arabic translation. Although there were Arabic translations, it can be fairly said about them that the Islamists did not know what ought and ought not be actually ascribed to Aristotle. The renaissance which you refer to never really existed except as an artifact of inept historiography. It was simply the late Middle Ages along with some artistic influences from Byzantium.
Darn B & T, you know how to lucidly trash my snark.
Good show. “Powder for the Whig? That’s an old sTory.”
But it is good flattery for the Pope. (Unless he starts reading Needham or Sarton.)
Pity Galileo isn’t available to make his comments on the scientific credentials of the Vatican
Actually, Galileo would probably have good words for his Vatican colleagues. After all, the Jesuit astronomers lined up with him until, insufferable prig that he could be (not always; he did have many friends), he insulted them and their order, just as he insulted the pope. Galileo was a man who could not take yes for an answer.
yeah….and they did stand with him for 15 years and Copernicus for 91 years…then Galileo decided he was the better theologian….
Stop rewriting history please. The Vatican played cynical games with Galileo and science then and is diong so now.
Didn’t the Vatican ask Galileo for evidence to prove his hypothesis?
Yes, as Copernicans, members of the trial asked Galileo to provide proof of his theory. He could not because, 1) some of his assumptions were wrong, 2) he did not have necessary technology, and 3) he did not know how. Cardinal Bellermine was disappointed, and said so in his letter to Foscarini wherein he postulated that the book of Joshua would have to be reconsidered because of faulty interpretation. Since Galileo could not resolve the matter, they set it aside.
Tom Quirk,
I think your letter is quite good and very well thought out. If I could I would endorse your letter myself.
I would add a paragraph that would describe how the green movement undermines the Catholic Church but nothing you said in this letter bothers me in the least.
GREAT LETTER!
Paul Westhaver: You can endorse the letter–which Tom Quirk posted but didn’t compose–at http://www.ClimateLetterToPopeFrancis.org, which will lead you to it at the website of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, where the letter originated.
Additionally: Tom Quirk also endorsed the letter (for which we’re grateful), as you can see in the list on the original page, http://www.ClimateLetterToPopeFrancis.org.
I like to quote Stalin on the influence of the Pope on the real world: “How many army divisions does he have?”
Why do you like that quote so much ?
Luckily most Catholics have been ignoring the Pope for decades on a wide variety of issues.
And the benefits are ?
Well written article. For those getting tired of it, better get used to it. This upcoming Encyclical is huge because Pope Francis is going to come out providing his moral stamp of approval on the falsified theory of human caused climate change and the need for world governments, to come together this December at the UN’s meeting to make commitments of all sorts.
We here that this just involves CO2 emissions, in order to save the world. Yeah, right. So far, increasing CO2 has rescued the planet from dangerously low levels of CO2. Life on this planet needs more, not less CO2……..at least, that’s what authentic observations of life show.
The last 3 decades of weather and climate have probably been the best on this planet in 1,000 years, since the Medieval Warm Period.
Unfortunately, the Vatican and its advisers have already shown that they going to disregard all of the authentic science, and in fact, intend to ramp up the exaggeration and alarm-ism:
Final Declaration on Workshop on climate change
“yet the current trajectory may well reach a devastating 4-degrees C or higher”…..this is +7-degrees F
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/04/28/final_declaration_on_workshop_on_climate_change/1140356
There is much more but just that one extreme statement above, by itself tells me this is purely political and they are jumping on board with the UN. Not only that, they are appealing to 1 billion Catholics and people of all the worlds faiths to come together on this.
I’m a life long Catholic.
Here’s the thing for me. If your position is supposed to be the moral high ground and you are the biggest public figure in the world in that regard, that leads and wants the worlds religious to come together on truth but your scientific position, includes a blatantly unscientific lie(+4-degrees C or higher) in order to scare people to support your position, then you are a hypocrite.
If the pope came out and said “6 billion people is too many on this planet, we need birth control or abortions are ok” or “we are using too many fossil fuels/energy and need to cut back” or, the rich countries need to decarbonize and/or keep giving money to the poor countries until we have more balance and fairness”, then I could respect that.
Or, even if he acknowledged something like “Yeah, the boost in CO2 is increasing crop yields and world food production by 20% and the warming has slowed down but we still need to take such and such actions.
But to tell exaggerated lies and represent them as the truth and present yourself as the worlds moral authority and attempt to get other religions to join based on the exaggerated lies is hypocritical.
For sure there will be plenty of people that are influenced. Religion is faith in something that can’t be proven, so he is appealing to people to have faith in something else that hasn’t been proven(in fact, with regards to the evidence being used, global climate models, has been falsified). This catastrophically demeans the office of the pope with respect to morals and shows that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a political body, just like the UN……and the IPCC that they created.
Mark,
Therein is the crux of the matter. I am not happy with the stated opinion of the PAS but these people are not necessarily Catholic, yes they are politicians, as is Sir Paul Nurse at the Royal Academy.
I am apprehensive of what will be in the encyclical, but hopeful that they will hesitate being provably incorrect in the future because of the likely durability of what they will be saying. So I will wait for the exact wording. I hope for and expect some weasel words.
Excellent letter! Somehow it reminded me of:
“Entering the presence of Innocent II., before whom a large sum of money was spread out, the Pope observed, “You see, the Church is no longer in that age in which she said, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’”—“True, holy father,” replied Aquinas; “neither can she any longer say to the lame, ‘Rise up and walk.’
(http://www.bartleby.com/344/20.html)
I hope the church gets its priorities in order. I was encouraged by this pope at first but now, not so much.
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
12. And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.
13. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”… Matthew 21:12
http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-12.htm
This would be the moment when Jesus upturned the tables.
Actual letter > open letter
One strategy of leadership is to notice when a parade is passing by and then jump out in front of it so as to be seen as its leader. I think the Pope saw a parade.
Wonderful letter, great to see so many signators. Pity there are not many more Catholics – like myself – and sadly it is a sign of the Orwellian science that most Real Scientists have to be retired.
I have penned the following bit of doggerel.
PAPAL BULL
God does not control the weather anymore
Its the Pagan Club of Rome and Albert Gore,
Will our head honcho in a poncho see fit
To proclaim Global Warming Holy Writ:
Is he about to demonize CO2
By ending black smoke emissions from his flue,
Must we now pray to the pagan goddess Gaea
Ignore Christmas – feast with Saturnalia.
I once learned the Ten Commandments at the knee
Of a Mother who explained the Didache,
Prior to the miracle of electrical light
She could not teach her brood reading in the night;
So if this Pontiff says Africans must stay
In fuel poverty – it’s their Auto-da-fe,
All those fossil fuels are theirs and bountiful
Not to exploit them is just more Papal Bull.
His Holiness should stick to promoting God
Instead of embracing scientific fraud,
How can the poor gain a title to this earth
When denied the means by energetic dearth;
Since Global Warming stopped in ninety seven
Voodoo climate scientists appeal to heaven,
Their unending swill of money in the trough
Should not the shorn sheep finally switch off?
Will Pope Francis instruct every Catholic
To believe the new creed of the Hockey Stick,,
Reprinting our Bibles in a shade of green
Ignoring the teachings of the Nazarene;
Defying mother earth and the occult
For our sins of emissions and the indult,
I’ll stick to my faith in the God of Passion
Ignoring the unsustainable fashion.
We are told – ignore the warming of the sun
George Orwell foresaw Agenda Twenty One,
The Master Plan – control the population
For climate Realists – excommunication;
Papal dabbling in this science of ill repute
Will turn Mother Church into a prostitute,
So as we await the next encyclical
Ignore junk – be it ecclesiastical.
Wow! You are talented. Enjoyed your work very much.
Great. Loved it
+1
Truth, not a doggerel, thanks you exceptional.
Sorry it should have read ” you are exceptional”.
Very well put!
Feynman is quoted as follows:
“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.[2]”
Notice the centrality of the word “law” in everything that Feynman writes. Laws can be tested against data because laws logically imply the data. The great dissimulation of the Warmists is found in their refusal to specify the logical relationship between models and data that allow models to be tested against the data or, to use a lesser standard, that allow models to be “validated” against data. Warmists undertake neither testing nor validation because there is no logical relationship between model and data that permits either.
Feynman had it right. Laws are central to science and there are no laws in models. Of course, models are consistent with laws but models do not use laws to logically imply the results of model runs. Models will never be more than producers of scenarios that might serve as a heuristic for scientists. Heuristics cannot rise to the level of laws.
I don’t care what advice the pope gives to individual Catholics, they already suffer from one set of irrational beliefs, why not add another such set of beliefs, but He should not try to tell govts what to do, wars have been and are being fought to get rid of that kind of thing.
The Pope should not ‘try to tell govts what to do?’ Presumably only those that reject Science should do so, eh?
warrenlb May 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm says
The Pope should not ‘try to tell govts what to do?’ Presumably only those that reject Science should do so, eh?
Exactly warrenlb. Groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Club of Rome, Pembina Institute, etc, who reject science, are doing just that. Dictating policy based on B.S. (Bad Science).
Glad we could sort that out.
@David Ball
Do you know of some peer-reviewed Science that contradicts the Pope?
@ warrenLB,
Now you are just being inflammatory.
u.k.(us)
Sorry, but I don’t accept that warrenlb is “being inflammatory”.
His previous posts on WUWT demonstrate he lacks the intellectual ability to understand what he writes.
Richard
Ya, maybe.
But never underestimate your blog commenters.
@U.K. So you think it’s inflammatory to ask David Ball to identify the [peer-reviewed] Science he alludes to as contradicting the Pope? If he refers to it, he should identify it. If he can’t, then perhaps he was wrong that such exists?
@WarrenLB,
1) I really don’t care what the Pope thinks.
2) The debate over what David thinks vs the Pope vs You, is just more fodder.
So yep, just feeding the fire.
@UK
So it’s feeding the fire to ask what peer reviewed science contradicts the Pope, but it’s not feeding the fire for most of the posts to attack the Pope for his stand on AGW? Is that your position?
You know my position, what’s with all these technicalities ?
The Pope is way out of his depth, which makes the entire argument nonsensical.
Unless you want more Christian voters to give more subsidies to GE to build more wind turbines.
Hopefully you are secure enough in your belief systems to have a sense of humour about it;
Is this like a test ?
You failed.
Failed how ? what was the criterion ?
A sense of humour would be a good start.
I was being humorous, then you weren’t. Now I guess I’ll just call it a case of humor gone wrong.
It happens 🙂
I don’t have 25 minutes.
Thanks for the good laugh, David. It took me a while to “get” Father Ted but once I did the series reduces me to tears of health-giving laughter so thanks again.
Thank you, Antonia. My reaction was the same as yours and I wanted to share the light hearted but clever humour of Father Ted with all.
Are you sure that you are not doing to religion what global warmers did with temperature curves by claiming that the short period from 1450 onwards when the Western civilisation has broadly been further ahead of Islam proves that only the Judeo-Christian tradition is capable of scientific thought??
Anyone with the most sketchy knowledge of the achievements of the Islamic Caliphate (and mine is fairly sketchy) knows that science and mathematics in Persia were streets ahead of Christian lands in the ‘Dark Ages’……..
Not to mention the achievements of the ancient Chinese dynasties when most Europeans were illiterate savages………
Rtj1211
Much ( bi not all) of the Islamic knowledge of that period had come from the ancient Greeks.
They may have been the custodians of that knowledge but generally they were not the originators of it
Tonyb
Your focus is off. Galileo described, employed, and explicated scientific method. Galileo’s genius deserves all the credit. Newton invented the calculus and employed it to unify all known physical laws. He demonstrated that a satellite could be launched. Newton’s genius deserves all the credit. Einstein…and so on.
Was the ascension a magic lantern slide show ? Just asking.
So what were some the original ideas & inventions developed in math & science by the Islamic Caliphate?
“….These tragedies are normal when—as much of the environmental movement prefers—human beings, …are treated, as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
The author should instead point the accusing finger at himself, since it is he who won’t accept solutions to AGW which require Man to exert his dominance over Climate.
“What has delivered much of humanity from absolute material poverty is a combination of moral, social, political, scientific, and technological institutions. ”
Amen to that. But the author fails to follow his own imperative, as every scientific institution in the world concludes AGW. No exceptions.
“Empirical Evidence Suggests that Fossil Fuel Use Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming”
And from what pre-enlightenment institution did the author learn this from? That atmospheric CO2 has not increased 41 % since 1750? Or that somehow there is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect, which has sustained Earth’s temperature at a comfortable 60F above its equilibrium of 0F if there were no Greenhouse Effect? Failure to follow Science is not a sin. Making false claims about long established Scientific evidence is.
“For the Foreseeable Future, Wind and Solar Energy Cannot Effectively Replace Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Energy” & “The Poor Would Suffer Most from Attempts to Restrict Affordable Energy Use” & “Affordable Energy Can Help Millions of the World’s Poor Emerge from Poverty”
And what do these arguable statements have to do with whether or not AGW is occurring? The Pope’s call is to address AGW. And to address in a way that don’t harm the poor. For which policy solutions exist. Of which the author is apparently ignorant, e.g.: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
“Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Enhances Plant Growth”
All one can say is ‘there he goes again’ (with strawmen arguments). Up to about a 2C temperature rise, yes. beyond 2C, most crop yields fall. That AGW beyond 2C is harmful to crops, and that AGW will eventually be harmful to people and the environment isn’t in doubt by any of the world’s institutions of Science. Only by this guy, and any others who ignore Science.
The author’s claims are a combination of 100% wrong, irrelevant to the issue, or classic strawman argumentation. And his blog is posted as informative??
Your failed belief system is showing. All the ad hom, appeals to authority and to consensus, as well as your own straw man fig leaves can not hide it.
No substantive responses to my point by point rebuttal of Quirk?
Cutting and pasting is hardly a “substantive” rebuttal.
As always, warrenlb cherry-picks only the factoids that he believes support his argument, while rejecting the mountain of real world evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has been beneficial to the biosphere, and beneficial to the world’s poorest who are not saddled with unaffordable food costs — and which, because of the total lack of any global ‘harm’, is completely harmless. No one has ever identified any global harm due to the rise in CO2, which has been up to 20X higher in the past without ever causing any runaway global warming. That was the argument, remember? Before the goal posts shifted to “climate change”.
All their wild-eyed running around in circles and clucking like a bunch of Chicken Littles ignores the fact the rise in atmospheric CO2 has been entirely beneficial, with no downside or harm ever identified. We didn’t plan it that way. But that’s how it turned out.
And the usual scare story over a 2ºC rise in global T is completely baseless. Warmth is good; cold kills. Furthermore, global warming has been stopped for almost twenty years now. The entire premise was flat wrong. But the alarmist crowd can’t admit that they were wrong, so we get endless, evidence-free arguments from the same folks who have been 100.0% wrong in every alarming prediction they ever made. No wonder the public is turning on them.
@dbstealey
So no specific responses, just arm-waving, again.
@warrenlb,
I’ve provided plenty of specific, on-point arguments that destroy everything you believe in.
You are incapable of showing any global harm from the rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 is ipso facto harmless. And it is beneficial to the biosphere. But you can’t admit that proven fact, either.
All you have is your religion. You need to find a religion blog, because you’re out of place on a science site.
warrenlb
Your first point says
Well we really are doomed if Man is required to exert dominance over climate because nobody can do that. For example, please say how you intend to dominate Caribean climate so Islands don’t get struck by hurricanes.
All your other points are also daft. Indeed, they are so daft that it is not worth the bother to type refutations of them.
Please try to think what you are saying before posting comments.
Richard
@richard Courtney
You now say
“.. we really are doomed if Man is required to exert dominance over climate because nobody
can do that.” in the very same posting in which you supported Quirk’s point that “These tragedies are normal when—as much of the environmental movement prefers—human beings, …are treated, as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
Which is it, Courtney? Man can or cannot exert dominance over his dominion?
‘Not worth the bother’ normally translates as ‘Don’t know how to rebut the rest.’.
warrenlb
I refuted the first of your daft points saying
You have responded by asking
I answer:
The Pope is a Christian, Christians defer to Christian scripture, and Christian scripture (i.e. Genesis 41: 25-36) says
(a) God’s dominion is over everything
but
(b) Man’s dominion does not include climate
while
(c) Man’s dominion includes ability to take actions to prepare for and to cope with climate variability.
Please note that I have taken the bother to point out that your response to me is merely another demonstration that you lack both knowledge and brainpower to understand how wrong your posts are.
For example, you say “‘Not worth the bother’ normally translates as ‘Don’t know how to rebut the rest.’” which is true of yourself but not of others.
Richard
@richard Courtney
You say: “Man’s dominion does not include climate”
Once again, Mr Quirk said: “These tragedies are normal when—as much of the environmental movement prefers—human beings, …are treated, as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
So either
(a) You are one of the AGW environmentalists Mr Quirk says treat humans as animals. Or,
(b) Mr Quirk excluded AGW environmentalists from his accusation.
Is it (a) or (b) ?
warrenlb
Your case is not helped by you repeatedly demonstrating you don’t understand what you are writing.
Yes, as you quote, Quirk wrote
But you are wrong to repeatedly claim Quirk said Man has dominion over climate.
QUIRK DID NOT SAY THAT! YOU MISTAKENLY DID.
Quirk said and you quoted that Man has a duty to exercise “the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
As I explained to you
So, your silly question derives from you lacking ability to understand what is and what is not Man’s dominion.
Please desist from making posts because they only serve to demonstrate you lack both the knowledge and the brainpower to understand what you are writing about.
Richard
@richard Courtney
Sorry old boy, your wrong.
While you might not think humans have dominion over climate, Quirk doesn’t make that distinction, and criticizes Environmentalists in his essay “…for treating humans as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
warrenlb
Sorry, little boy, Quirk did NOT say humans have dominion over climate, YOU DID.
As usual, your assertions and argument are a red herring.
I again request that you desist from making posts because they only serve to demonstrate you lack both the knowledge and the brainpower to understand what you are writing about.
Richard
@richard McCourtney.
Come again?
Tell us just where in Quirk’s writings he excluded Climate from the Dominium in HIS quote that ‘ the environmental movement prefers human beings to be treated as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature rather than exercising the dominium God gave them in the beginning…”
Where, please.
Glad to see this letter and all the heavy-weight signatories. Thanks for putting it on your website, Anthony. And thanks for writing it, Mr. Quirk.
About all that needs to be said about Pope Francis is that Raoul Castro likes him for his Marxist theology.
Sadly it is not the only “tell” that we have once again had a ringer installed as Pope.
From the letter:
“Alongside good science in our approach to climate policy must be two preferential options: for humanity and, among humanity, for the poor. By this we do not mean to pit humanity against nature, any more than to pit the poor against the rich. Rather, we mean that because humanity alone bears the imago Dei, any effort to protect the environment must put at its center human well-being, and in particular the well-being of the poor, because they are the more vulnerable, the less able to protect themselves.”
If that isn’t a call for redistribution of wealth then I can’t read English.
‘Helping the poor’ = ‘redistribution of wealth’? If so, I presume you’re against both?
Add the ‘Red Herring’ fallacy to warrenlb’s endless list of logical fallacies. It’s not “helping” when you’re forced to work for someone else at gunpoint. It’s confiscating your labor for someone else’s swell idea.
I didn’t make a claim. I asked Tom if he thought ‘helping the poor’ = ‘redistribution of wealth”, and if he were against both.
helpingpoor =good /// redistributionof wealth =bad
Yes. And helping the poor is redistribution of wealth when it is forced upon individuals by government. If you want to help the poor I applaud you for that. If I choose not to it is my business. You realize, if you are an American citizen, that you can voluntarily send our government extra money for them to use.
Is not charity redistribution of wealth? Do you oppose charity?
Charity is not taken by force. You folks seem to think you can take the earnings of another and give it to someone else (redistribution) and it is some how YOUR charity… Your straw man is an inferno..
Charity is incompatible with force.
@Glenn999
Thanks for a straight up answer. I couldn’t agree more.
Just keep in mind that the more you help the poor the more likely it is that they will stay poor and dependent on someone else. So the forced redistribution of wealth by government not only keeps people poor it also makes them dependent upon the officials who do the forcing. Easy way for an elected official to stay in power.
Dictatorship 101:
1) take their money (keeps them dependent on government)
2) take their guns (keeps them from fighting back)
3) take their freedoms (he who controls the money and guns controls the people)
The climate change scare is the new primary vehicle to attempt to accomplish number 1.
With a track record of the Church you would think they would keep their mouth shut.
I believe if you do just a little research you will find that the Catholic Church leads the world in charitable efforts and help for the needy. BTW I am not Catholic, but I recognize the charity of the Church.
Thank you, Louis. Yes, Catholic nuns were the first to roll up their sleeves and nurse AIDS patients, weren’t they. God bless them.
Of course Mr. Quirk knows the the Pope will not read his letter. Neither will any of his minions. Too long. I didn’t read it either. Too long.
Now if it would fit double spaced in eight and a half by eleven it may be read.
When as some say God had a chat with Moses he gave a brief set of instructions. Would easily fit on eight and a half by eleven. Very pungent easy to understand hard to argue with.
Mr. Quirk should rewrite his letter.
I wouldn’t bet against the Papal Science committee (or whatever) checking in on WUWT every day.
Me neither.
The papacy is the oldest institution in the West – far older than the Catholic inspired universities of the Middle Ages – and deserves respect for simply surviving so long.
Let’s wait and see what Francis’ encyclical says.
Wrong. I know for a fact that one of his “minions” already has. I also know that many of his “minions” have authored similar, polite, respectful assertions to the contrary of the PSA already.
Great letter. I applaud the effort but IMO this pope is social Marxist as they come and CAGW is an effective method of wealth redistribution so……. Don’t expect much.
It is a great letter.
CAGW, AGW, Climate Change is an effective method of redistributing more wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest and includes a massive effort to keep the middle class well below the middle.
This Pope is practicing a hubris unbecoming of the office. His naivete in thinking he can dance with committed climate extremists and somehow extract a net good will bring the same disrepute that Pope Pius XII brought on to the Church during WWII. Yes, one can look to the apologists to explain and defend his actions, but the plain fact remains the Church did not acquit itself well during that period of fanaticism either. In observing this Pope there is little hope he will guide the Church through the era of climate obsession any better than Pius XII did through the challenges of his era.
He who controls energy controls the world and up to this day energy is mostly oil coal and gas. Thus controlling these hydrocarbons is the dream of the world’s despots, from Putin to Obama and everyone in between.
Seeing that Christianity has always been a pain in the side of despots, the latter, from Lenin to Obama and every other despot in between, have always tried to muzzle Christian leaders but Ban ki Moon has gone one step further; he has bought their leader, the Pope, my Pope who has lost my respect.
Pete Ross,
I am listening to this Pope, but probably not in the way he might hope.
No Christian despots, in history, huh?
From the “for what it is worth” column. The pope is a result of his training and “breeding” and culture. Across South America at that time, there was tremendous poltiical and social pressure to use the church for communism’s gain – not for helping the people nor saving souls.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/20840-communist-defector-says-kgb-created-liberation-theology
Good letter, from someone who clearly knows his history. Glad to see the Alfred North Whitehead quote. It’s a solid point and it doesn’t get nearly enough play here, for what, I think, are obvious reasons:
(From Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason):
In contrast with the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science because they believed it could be done, and should be done. As Alfred North Whitehead put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science . . . derivative from medieval theology.” Whitehead’s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published. How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica (1910–13), make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific inquiry? Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else. As he explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that . . . there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind? . . . It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.”
Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of gods found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. Any particular “occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot” god, or might be produced by “some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the same confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.” Indeed, most non-Christian religions do not posit a creation at all: the universe is eternal, and while it may pursue cycles, it is without beginning or purpose, and most important of all, having never been created, it has no creator. Consequently, the universe is thought to be a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary. For those holding these religious premises, the path to wisdom is through meditation and mystical insights, and there is no occasion to celebrate reason.
Stark, Rodney (2007-12-18). The Victory of Reason – Random House Publishing Group
It’s a very well-written letter. It strikes the right tone of respect and wisely introduces the seeds of reason Pope Francis needs to consider carefully before he pronounces policy. As I understand it, an encyclical is such an enunciation to the Church.
Has this Pope expressed some willingness to endorse the idea of “man’s exceptionalism”? If not, I’d consider this line of reasoning a weak point. A more conservative Pope, like Benedict, might have been swayed by the Biblical call for Man to “have dominion in the natural world”. I get the feeling that Francis may reject out of hand this belief, and the language used to express it. Would an enlightened, scientifically-trained prelate today express such a view? I don’t know, but another metaphor comes to my mind: mankind as part of a web of life.
That Francis is a fervent believer in “faith” is something he made known in his first encyclical
Whether he subscribes to medievalists’ “Great Chain of Being” to explain Man’s place in a hierarchical firmament – or a more Earth-centered view – will be fascinating to discover. Regards.
In Whitehead’s estimation, other religions’ ideas of a god or gods could not sustain such an understanding of the universe.
===================================
That’s just narcissistic self-deception that stems from Whitehead’s ignorance of the history of the church and science.
The Pope’s pear was designed by men in frocks. It was inserted into an orifice, then opened by a priest until the victim confessed, recanted, or bled to death screaming in agony.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/pics_05/pear01.jpg
It’s frightening to see so many Catholic fanatics defending the legitimacy of their cult in the 21st century.
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.
King Lear Act 3, scene 4, 17–22
good try, but fail
you sound a little angry too.
oh, and you’re not trying to generalize are you?
What on earth are you talking about? Please explain.
More frightening is the amazing ignorance of the anti Christian rhetoric contained in several of these posts. Usually comments on WUWT are rather well informed and well thought out. That is certainly not the case in the Catholic bashing today.
Frequently our detractors claim that the readers and posters here are ignorant of the issues and therefore incapable of making good choices with regard to AGW. For the first time I have to admit the willful and deliberate ignorance and misrepresentation of Christian theology and history on display in these comments gives some credibility to our critics.
You are reading opinions, if you feel the need to educate, then do so.
Nobody is stopping you.
So quityerbitchin.
It would appear that opinions are presented as facts.
Something that occurs quite regularly at skepticalscience.
Maybe many of the realclimate & J. Cooks followers show up here, & try to make WUWT look like them,
Paul,
Don’t feel bad. Muslims and Islam get crapped on too.
I’m all for the free expression of opinion, whether factually informed or totally imbecilic. But I hate double standards.
I dare you to say anything about Jews, Judaism, or Israel. A small army will mobilize to try to have your posts deleted, and your posting privilege revoked.
Speaking of which, Zeke, cgh, et. al., why are you all not howling in protest about the Catholic bashing across this and numerous other related threads? Where is the clamoring for censorship? Why the double standard?
Max,
If you observe… the trash talkers start by making up sh1t about Galileo etc… Once they’ve been outed as ignorant they persist and delve into outright vitriol. Once the vitriol starts I let it happen. My favorite expression is “I stopped believing in God when I was a child” then they follow up with something that Lucifer would blush upon hearing. You see, I think, the Galileo stuff is a canard. In truth, people simply suffer the defect of hate and the defect of arrogance….”I stopped believing in God when I got toilet trained” Sheesh.!
The effect is this: I advance science, history, reason then they spew hate arrogance and bigotry, in writing no less. When the dust settles, the wacky end up looking like hateful little tw@ts.
Good point they’d never abuse the prophet Muhammad.
I wonder if the brave Pamela Gray would make an image of herself slapping “The Prophet Muhammad”.
Yuk… big words from a “brave” super-girl whose mind hasn’t changed since she was a child. I’d love to see that cartoon. We will never see it.
hummm, wouldn’t that be an image of Mohammad slapping me and me coming up swinging?
“While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”
Geneses 8:22
Re: “None simulated the complete absence of observed warming over approximately the last 16 (according to UAH satellite data) to 26 (according to RSS lower tropospheric data) years.”
So, now complete absence of warming according to RSS is now 26 years, rather than the 18 years 5 months (a period having a century-class spike shortly after its start time) mentioned by Christopher Monckton?
The linear trend in RSS over the past 26 years shows about .3 degree C of warming, as can be seen here:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1989.333/plot/rss/from:1989.333/trend
How is that complete lack of warming?
I see overstatement of the case of lack of warming, and that this open letter would have its strength maximized if it avoided factcheckable overstatements.
Donald L. Klipstein
You ask
Your question ignores the word “observed” that is in the quotation you query.
Data (in this case linear trend in global temperature anomaly) has an associated confidence. A datum is observed to be similar to another datum when the two pieces of information overlap according to their stated confidence ranges. Climate science uses 95% confidence for assessment of data.
Warming is an increase in temperature discernible as a linear trend in temperature which can be observed with 95% confidence as differing from a linear trend in temperature of zero. If the range of 95% confidence for the warming value overlaps zero then it is not possible to say the warming is more than zero. Of course, it could be more than zero but there is no confidence that it is.
So, there is “complete lack of warming” observed with 95% confidence indicated by the RSS over the past 26 years.
Although I agree that the questioned statement correctly says
“None simulated the complete absence of observed warming over approximately the last 16 (according to UAH satellite data) to 26 (according to RSS lower tropospheric data) years.”
personally, I would have preferred that the information were stated as being
“None simulated the complete absence of warming observable with 95% confidence over approximately the last 16 (according to UAH satellite data) to 26 (according to RSS lower tropospheric data) years.”
However, the 95% confidence value is implicit in climate data and, therefore, my preference is for a pedantic statement because it has the political advantage of avoiding questions such as yours.
I hope this answer is sufficient.
Richard
Open letter to the Pope: Read a lot of science/political/poverty articles on WUWT.
Excellent open letter. Well done!
After the response from Heartland and the fact the Pope and the Church were openly challenged, which the European media jumped on hard, then the subsequent response published here, it is highly likely that the Vatican is reading this site daily. I know for a fact that many Catholics are..
You betcha, Bill.
Bill H,
In my sad experience leadership levels in the Church suffer from extreme selective hearing problems. Especially from members of their flock.
How’s this as a simplfied version?
To: The Pope
From: Quirk of Faith
Dude, chill.
+1, I wish I had a rimshot retort, but God didn’t make me that way.
Actually, God didn’t make you any way.
mebbe
Please consider how it would be possible for you to know what you assert.
Richard
richardscourtney May 11, 2015 at 12:40 am
In exactly the same way that Paul knows what he asserts.
I thank you for emphasizing my point.
mebbe
Objectively speaking, I would know far more about matters concerning me than you would know about me. Objectively speaking of course. You know….logically…Your steel trap mind can process that kind of logic?
Several years ago when I first met our new parish priest and he told me he was a Jesuit, I said “Oh, a heretic” . When he laughed, I knew we would get along. Let’s just hope Pope Francis has some heretical skepticism in his blood. The Jessies are always for the poor, so the real truth regarding the effects the warmists’ policies will have on the poor could have an effect upon the position he takes. I am as worried as anyone that he will be too heavily influenced by the liberals which surround him, but good scientists should await observational evidence and not rush to judgment.
when I was a boy in the mid sixties the church propagated a book to young people in scool, defaitistic on science to humiliate people. To a proposed moon landing the book said:
1. Needed acceleration to leave earth would squeeze any astronauts lungs.
2. No means to transport enough air for the astronauts.
3. The landing vehicle will sink into 100 m dust covering the moon.
The church never retreated from that false claims.; and so it will behave with ‘climate science’ – the pope is never wrong!
Hans
My father told me about that book except, it was a secular book based on commonly held scientific principles, promulgated by “scientists” at that time. In 1940’s my father was taught by his secular physics teacher that if a man were to be shot into space,then the gunpowder charge detonation would kill the space capsule inhabitant. It sounds to me that there was a book that was out of date. Your assertion that the claims were false is not true, just a little outdated. If that constitutes your perception of the Church and science then your life has been rather sheltered. I hardly think that my father’s teachers were conspiring to keep him ignorant and he does not think the teacher ought to retroactively retreat from archaic principles from the grave. In fact that is the way science works. Everything is eventually obsolete.
“….Two world-wide religions
Coming together,
But with different Gods,
Not quite birds of a feather;
One worships the real God
To which millions have prayed,
The other a false God,
The God of Man-Made…..”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-K3
“or [as with pantheism and atheist materialism] “some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the same confidence as [with Biblical theism] in the intelligible rationality of a personal being. In short, the Biblical worldview launched science as a systematic endeavor to understand the real world by a rigorous process of testing hypotheses by real-world observation.”
Tom Quirk
The above statement is historically wrong. The Greek natural philosophers and Epicureans were materialists. Western science originated from them. Chemistry arose from the atomic theory of Democritus. Rationality alone is not science. Aristotle and Ptolemy were rational but scientifically wrong. In fact, the scientific revolution started when Copernicus and Galileo debunked Aristotle and Ptolemy. Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church, and 250 years later Darwin was vilified by the church. It was only in the 20th century that the church accepted the scientific method. Science arrived in the church 400 years after the scientific revolution. It was not leading. It was lagging behind.
Link to a (hopefully) unbiased – source – there are plenty of Catholic sites/links that have additional info, but many people here probably would not be receptive to them – do your own study if you truly are interested in the truth of the matter
Methinks you protest too much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Unfortunately your link is biased and its logic is flawed. Probably written by Jesuits. Christianity was and is the world dominant religion. Of course we expect many scientists to be Christians. Many merchants are Christians. Does it mean the church is promoting commerce? In the medieval era, few of the population were educated. Priests were educated and had access to books on Greek science. We expect some scientist-priests. But what was the church doctrine? It was teaching infallibility of the bible and the Pope, supernatural causes and divine revelation. And punished or killed those who disagree. Contrary to science and reason. Priests and Christians did not become scientists because of their religion. They were scientists in spite of their religion.
Methinks the faithful could not accept the harsh truth about their church
Tom Quirk
This pope worries me. Your arguments about the suffering that the poor will undergo if these anti-science global warming policies are implemented will secretly gladden his heart — or at least find no place in his heart.
.
This is the old church of demons and exorcisms coming back — when it was believed that suffering was what brought men and women to God. Suffering is a God given good! Burning people at the stake to save their souls, hoping that with their final breath they will scream for Christ’s mercy, will be the next thing to return.
.
This pope probably thinks that Karl Marx was the second coming of Christ — alright, perhaps that goes a little too far — but not by much. But this returning old Church and Socialist government share one common need — that the people be utterly dependent on them. This church probably sees itself running the soup kitchens that socialism will create — the people on their needs before a statue of Christ — holding up their soup bowls. Soup has always been the church’s soma.
.
Am I being too hard on the church? This church is about to commit a great evil — a truly great anti-Christian evil. They need to be plainly told.
.
.
This below is my Gavin Schmidt poem that I have been working on. This is a vague rough out and needs a few more lines. Nothing here is finished (or should I say sacred?).
.
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(most sorry Kiki Dee)
Got no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
Man is the measure of all things that be!
The Progressive Alliance
With its New Age science
Says I got the data in me
I work mid the mists and the fogs
Ever changing the things that I’ve wrought
And hide like a fox from the dogs
That I do so with almost no thought
The thermometers all want skilling
If their readings are not alarming
The early ones all need chilling
The later ones all need warming
—–
—–
—–
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want they reward it
An apple in a garden hangs
From the lowest branch of a tree
Why reach for anything higher
It fills my every desire
I got the devil —
I got the devil —
I got the devil in me!
Eugene WR Gallun
Sorry, Eugene, but I thought your thoughts and your poem were crap.
Antonia
Poets are like abused children — innately needing attention — but abuse being the only attention they get — the only attention they know. You replied to my work! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! You payed attention! I rejoice in that.
Eugene WR Gallun
It is interesting how people only defer to Papal advice when it already aligns with what they want to do.
For example I hardly think President Obama will follow any Papal advice on US military policy in the Middle East. Also imagine won’t see many leftists throwing their condoms and birth control pills out the window and begin working to overturn Roe v Wade anytime soon.
Ok, this should be a science site but it’s become an anti-Catholic bashing forum (again), so I think this is ok to post
Most people who hate the Catholic Church , do so not because it’s (supposedly) anti-science, or because of the moral failings of some if its members, or any or the other “typical” reasons. They hate it because it is such a strong moral voice, and is so pro-life, and does proclaim, as one example ,that an abortion is a morally evil action. They think, deep down inside themselves, that trying to tear down the Church will help them feel, psychologically, better about themselves and their own failings, and it often does – temporarily (always temporarily)
Despite the failings of some of its members – and we are all hypocrites to some extent – no organization has ever done more for humanity
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_E6Lw09z2Y?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D
None of this is Catholic bashing. We are bashing a particular pope. I am an atheist (of the non-preaching type) and i really liked the two previous popes. You need to see the distinction.
Below I suggest a cartoon for Josh. Take a look at that posting and maybe you will understand the distinction better.
Eugene WR Gallun
Great letter – and equally relevant as a message to all our Protestant churches. I hope they will take it aboard also. Suggest all churches simply copy the letter (with its list of supporters, all prominent theologians and scientists) and distribute it by e-mail to all their members. Very many people understand an essay better if it is written and backed with scriptural references. (Atheists will fume when hearing such statement – but that is just the way “religious” people are!). The result would be that many Christians would suddenly see the climate controversy from a Christian angle – and suddenly understand it properly.
Might I suggest a cartoon.to Josh — though this is not his type of humor.
The Pope clutching a copy of “Das Kapital” to his heart and underneath is the caption — The New Useful Idiot.
Eugene WR Gallun
There is an old and well tried answer: God issues a recall notice to Frank and the next Pope gets it right
Checkmate
Many Catholic Publications are expressing their concerns about the upcoming encyclical.
It seems that the Heartland Institute has been heard, as well as conservative catholics. From what I am reading, the leftist press and likely the UN are going to be disappointed.
See some of the reactions to the Vatican Conference…
Climate change skeptics press their case to the Vatican
http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/04/27/climate-change-skeptics-press-their-case-to-the-vatican/
George Weigel neuters the climate change encyclical
http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2015/05/06/weigel-neuters-the-climate-change-encyclical/
Conservatiove Catholic George Weigel:
http://pewsitter.com/view_news_id_203150.php
“Catholic skeptics about both climate-change science and Pope Francis went into panic mode, warning that the pope was going to write something that would align Catholicism with Al Gore, Tim Wirth, and the worshippers of Gaia. None of the parties to this dispute, which has now continued for almost half a year, has seen a draft of the encyclical. But all of them are quite sure that it’s a “global-warming encyclical” — just as my fictitious combatants in the first century were sure that Luke’s Gospel was all about the Zealot party — and have taken up the rhetorical cudgels accordingly.Nothing to see here.“
“That the Vatican press office has proven incapable of coping with this is another sign that the deep reform that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope to undertake has yet to be achieved in full. And that deficiency is, alas, likely to be on full display when the pope’s encyclical is finally released.
George Weigel reviews the papal climate debacle
http://junkscience.com/2015/05/10/george-weigel-reviews-the-papal-climate-debacle/
Heartland’s presence in Rome generated news coverage by The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters and NPR as well as American Spectator, Associated Press, Brietbart, Christian Science Monitor, ClimateWire, Daily Caller, International Business Times, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, National Review, Scientific American, The Telegraph, The Independent, Townhall.com, USA Today, Vatican Insider, and probably hundreds or even thousands of other print and online outlets.
The pontifical spin cycle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417902/pontifical-spin-cycle-george-weigel
I respectfully suggest that the Pope may not be allowed to read the open letter. It will have to go through his minders, and they may not like it.
Where is Father Guido Sarducci when we really need him?
If Aristotle were scientific and observational, he would have dropped rocks and watched, and he would have discovered what Galileo discovered. Had Aquinas done the same, he would discover it too. But none of the intelligent priests wanted to experiment. They just took the word of the great Aristotle for it.
CC was a monolith. Maybe today it’s not. The Pope is now fallible? I’m unaware of the new doctrine.
You might want to brush up on doctrine in the RCC.
The Pope’s infallibility scope is constrained to limited areas
I must say thank you to Anthony and to Tom Quirk and to all the one hundred and forty-two (142) learned signatories who have openly supported the letter. THANK YOU to ALL.
Thank you also to Richard S. C. who sets people straight.
We (all) write here because we can and because we feel we need to get things off our chest one way or another and this site is superb especially in respect of its’ PEOPLE: they seem to be fair, balanced, intelligent and have great understanding. The site allows all reasonable comment.
Bear with me on this …
I submit that all empires turn to dust and it seems evident that religious belief systems do not.
My point is this…
… if a king, an emperor, a holy man or any other leader (be he a gentle person or a tyrant) has the complete TRUST of his followers, then those followers will do anything to support that leader; however, it turns out out that “belief” is always stronger than “tyrannical control”.
Tyrants eventually perish but a strong belief system is nearly impossible to crush UNLESS it is DRAMATICALLY exposed as fake, or is punctured so publicly that it will lose its’ credibility and TRUST.
Here is where you need more imagination than scientific knowledge …
A “god” is something in your imagination: it cannot be taken away or destroyed but it can be substituted. The church societies know this but it is not obvious to most folks until you have someone die in your arms.
We have a tyrannical regime in our midst. The holy man COULD support that regime at the stroke of a pen. The holy man could ALSO crush that tyrant in similar manner.