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
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?