Latest Climate Propaganda Tool: Pope Francis “Brief Exposure” Flash Cards

pope-francis

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study “Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change” claims looking at a picture of Pope Francis is more likely to cause Republicans to view climate change as a moral issue.

The Lasting Effects of Pope Francis’ Climate Change Edict

New research finds thinking about the pontiff changes the way we frame the issue.

By Tom Jacobs

Last fall, a study reported that Pope Francis’ much-discussed encyclical on climate change largely fell on deaf ears. Researchers from Texas Tech University found the appeal “failed to rally any broad support on climate change” among Americans, whether or not they were Catholic.

But newly published research suggests the pontiff’s call for taking care of the Earth has had a more subtle impact on American public opinion. It finds brief exposure to a photograph of the pope “increased perceptions of climate change as a moral issue.”

What’s more, this shift in how the issue is perceived was particularly strong among Republicans — a group that has traditionally been resistant to acknowledging the fact that humans are affecting the Earth’s climate in dangerous ways.

“The pope’s message may transcend political boundaries and fundamentally reshape how the issue is conceptualized among the public,” a research team led by Jonathon Schuldt of Cornell University writes in the journal Climatic Change.

This gap was particularly large among Republicans. Thirty-nine percent of those who were exposed to the pope’s image said they considered it a moral issue, compared to 30 percent among those who were not. That’s a potentially important shift, as pondering about the ethical consequences of environmental destruction may shift behavior more effectively than thinking in utilitarian terms.

Thinking about the pope did not increase the percentage of Republicans who felt personal responsibility for climate change, which stayed steady at 36 percent.

Read more: https://psmag.com/the-lasting-effects-of-pope-francis-climate-change-edict-89e5c111159b

The abstract of the new study;

Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change

Jonathon P. Schuldt, Adam R. Pearson, Rainer Romero-Canyas, Dylan Larson-Konar

In his recent encyclical letter Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis issued a moral appeal to the global community for swift action on climate change. However, social science research suggests a complex relationship between religious concepts and environmental attitudes, raising the question of what influence the pope’s position may have on public opinion regarding this polarizing issue. In a national probability survey experiment of U.S. adults (n = 1212), we find that brief exposure to Pope Francis influenced the climate-related beliefs of broad segments of the public: it increased perceptions of climate change as a moral issue for the overall sample (and among Republicans in particular) and increased felt personal responsibility for contributing to climate change and its mitigation (among Democrats). Moreover, prior awareness of the pope’s views on climate change mattered, such that those who indicated greater awareness of the pope’s position showed stronger treatment effects, consistent with a priming account of these effects. Results complement recent correlational findings and offer further evidence of the Vatican’s influence on climate change public opinion.

Read more: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1893-9

Unfortunately the full study is paywalled, but the statement in the press release that thinking about the pope did not increase feelings of personal responsibility for climate change is intriguing.

Looking at a picture of Pope Francis stimulates my concerns about climate morality; but I doubt my thoughts about the morality of Pope Francis’ climate posturing will lead to the outcome the study authors appear to want.

Advertisements

160 thoughts on “Latest Climate Propaganda Tool: Pope Francis “Brief Exposure” Flash Cards

  1. Moreover, prior awareness of the pope’s views on climate change mattered, such that those who indicated greater awareness of the pope’s position showed stronger treatment effects, consistent with a priming account of these effects.

    Or those who already knew what the Pope thinks are more likely to be Catholics.
    And Catholics pay more respect to the Pope.

    I wonder if n = 1212 is large enough to distinguish these subtleties.

    • M Courtney,

      I’m Catholic (or more accurately, was raised Catholic) and I know what the Pope thinks, and I pay very little respect to this Pope.

      n = 1 in this study, so may not be statistically significant. :)

      • Add me to that.

        Already n = 2

        Seems that we will reach statistical significance in short time…

        BTW, the pope was advised by Schellnhuber from the notorious Potsdam PIK, who also is advising Merkel on climate matters, that was enough for me to dispose off any morality of the Pope on these matters…

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen,

        BTW, the pope was advised by Schellnhuber from the notorious Potsdam PIK, who also is advising Merkel on climate matters, that was enough for me to dispose off any morality of the Pope on these matters…

        Ah, thank you for the opening for me to remind people (or inform people who were not aware of this before) that Schellnhuber was the “inventor” of the fake, 2-degree limit.

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

        But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

        Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

        “Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.

      • This is the typical wishful thinking of liberals. If you say something to be enough, then it becomes true, hopefully. Catholic guilt says that, if you have not felt guilty about climate change and have thought about of viewed the pope’s image, you should. Wishful thinking, nothing more.

      • From the article : “In his recent encyclical letter Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis issued a moral appeal to the global community for swift action on climate change”

        As Phil R says “I am a Catholic ( or more accurately, was raised a Catholic)”, I am in the same corner and as soon as I read “In his recent encyclical letter Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis issued a moral appeal to the global community for swift action on climate change”
        I just shuddered, I saw that, when growing up, my father would proudly hand over his money every Sunday while we were wearing “hand me downs”.
        The minute I read the words; ” On Care for Our Common Home “, I put my hands over my wallet and left the building.

      • n = 3. On a roll. My already low opinion of the Church, an institution more devoted to the perpetuation of itself than to the emulation of Jesus, took a nose dive when the current (and possibly last) Pope embraced a clearly political cause under the pretense that it’s both a scientific and a moral matter. Ironically, his Leftist viewpoints are the greatest danger to the Church’s continued existence in the past 500 years.

      • Spouse is Catholic, I’m a CEO (Christmas and Eastrr Only).

        That the Pope drank the coolaide just makes me respect the Pope and Papacy a lot less… so now a flash image of him just causes “climate idiot” to flash in my brain…

      • @E.M. Smith and others
        The man is not the institution. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Church history will know that this is far from the worst Pope to lead the flock, nor is this the worst “crisis” the Church has faced. “This too shall pass away”. I am more mindful of Cardinal Baronius’ observation during Galileo’s squabbles with the Church: “The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

  2. His propaganda on behalf of the New Religious Creed of the goddess Gaia certainly had a profound on this 75 year old lifetime Catholic – I anxiously await a Catholic Pope so that I may return to mass and die in the faith of my father’s.

  3. Reading the Pope”s encyclical, and learning how atheists and secularists influenced it raised moral issues for me. Only not the ones the climate extremists wanted.

    • As an atheist and a secularist I strongly resent you trying to foist blame for the Pope onto us. Sorry but he is your fool not ours. We’ve got enough fools of our own. Is the Pope an atheist? No! Is the pope a secularist? I should think not!

      Is the Pope Catholic?

      • Pete Wilson,

        Fortunately, bears continue aboreal defecation.

        So bears no longer defecate in the north? :)

      • You missed the point, I am afraid. The Pope is to get advice on religious matters from Christians. He instead shaped his message to atheist standards with a faux veneer of Catholicism. If you were producing a magnum opus to serve your community but instead hired dogmatic Christians to shape the message by cleverly making it a gospel tract, what would your fellow atheists think of your work?

      • This pope cut his teeth on the heretical theology of “liberation theology” that swept South American Catholicism in the 1980s. He is more communist with a hat-tip toward Christ than a traditional Roman Catholic. How he was elevated to the seat is a mystery only God and the Devil know the answer to.

        I would expect him to side with anything that steals from the developed world and gives to the developing world. He is one who sees the “be good to the poor” stories in the parables and says “see Christ was a communist!!!!!” I do not trust him farther than I could throw him, and the Swiss Guard won’t let me close enough to throw him, so that distance is 0.

    • Yep, just looking at the pic of ‘His Holiness’ there completely changed my worldview and my scientific opinion about climate change ( by which we must always remember implies anthropogenic effects are indistinguishable from “climate change’ in general ).

      I will no longer be reading this den of climate denial. I will be donating my next month’s salary to the church because I don’t think they have enough money already and want to help His Holiness print lots more holy mugshots and save the Earth.

      Hope I’m not too late for mass.

      • Has anyone else noticed the parallel between Christianity and the environmental movement?

        Both movements were, essentially, grass roots movements that were designed for good but both were taken over by groups of people seeking power and influence and hence money.

        There is nothing in the original Christian teachings about needing a Pope and cardinals and bishops and property and taxes etc etc. The movement was hijacked by the power hungry.

        Greenpeace and WWF etc seem to be following the same path.

      • graphi,
        Whilst an absolute believer in the total sexual rectitude of the watermelons’ leaders of today, certain early churchmen – Borgias and others – sought to increase the number of their offspring.

        it be possible, no more, that some future watermelons, not content with, as you say: –
        “seeking power and influence and hence money” might be actually seeking to make sperm donations to many watermelon followers?
        Possible.
        Conceivable. Pun intended.

        And – as for the Indian Railway enthusiast – the jury is out, so this, plainly, should not be construed as suggesting anything wayward about his behaviour [Actual or Alleged].

        Auto

  4. Yes, we, Mankind, should be good stewards of the Earth and the biggest problems right now are centered around Mankind’s out of control population. It is a problem that Mankind can solve without catastrophic control by Mother Nature. But climate is another matter. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. It is a scientific issue. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. So the churches best approach to improving out climate would be through prayer. On the other hand the church might be of real help in solving our out of control population problem in a world of finite space and finite resources.

    • wilhaas said “Yes, we, Mankind, should be good stewards of the Earth and the biggest problems right now are centered around Mankind’s out of control population.”
      It always fascinates me that people who think like this always want population reductions such as he suggests to come from other people. Why do you think you get to choose who lives or dies?
      One hallmark of great leaders is that they often lead by example.

      • It always fascinates me that people who think like this always want population reductions such as he suggests to come from other people.

        Many or most of “the people who think like this” have only two or fewer children, so they’re not being hypocritical.

    • Human population is hardly out of control. Its rate of growth has slowed dramatically.

      Population in the world is currently (2017) growing at a rate of around 1.11% per year (down from 1.13% in 2016). The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year. Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above.

      Ironically, the rate peaked at almost the exact moment of my old professor Ehrlich’s alarmist book, the Population Bomb. Like so-called “climate scientists”, he simply extrapolated trends without good reason.

      • Gloat,
        I think you are right.

        However, there are still problems.

        East Africa has a population growing more rapidly than some.
        Difficulties over grazing rights, there, make preservation of wildlife more difficult.
        The conversion of the Amazon to ranches to produce cattle [and, perhaps, beefburger meat], will put many species – not just of mammal, but also trees and fungi – at considerable risk.

        A minor problem: the UK, partly on account of failures to get policies in place to build necessary homes, and a surge in immigration, needs many more homes. People WANT to live in, or near London. [I already do] Brownfield sites need to be prioritised.
        Affordable housing, too, must be prioritised.
        Most significant developments are 4/5 bedroom houses, with a price of over half a million pounds.
        NOT affordable.
        Not at all.
        I lost an admirable candidate for a position in my shipping company when I was upfront and talked about London, property prices and commuting. He had a 10 minute drive to work in Marseilles; some months of the year with the open top down. I promised him an hour (if he was lucky), on public transport, in London.
        As above, I lost him. Surprise, surprise.

        Auto – hopeful for the future, but not utopian.

      • Immigration to cities IMO is an issue apart from overall population growth, the rate of which is headed lower, to below replacement. Even in 1968 when Ehrlich, derided by his students as a laughable prophet of doom, the concept of demographic transition was already well understood. It had happened in the developed world and wiser heads than Ehrlich’s expected it would do so as well as the Third World developed, which has indeed occurred in the subsequent 50 years.

        Much infrastructure and housing trouble is government made. Also, the UK should consider limiting immigration to those with the highest qualifications, who will part of the solution rather than the problem.

      • Considering space and resources we are already way over populated for no reason what so ever. We are alreasy way beyond what it takes to propogate the species. We are already crowding out other species and causing an extinction event. There is currently no control and families can have just as many children as they want or even don’t want. If the human species fails to plan then it plans to fail. Technical advancement including the use of fossil fuels, and pax America have allowed populations to skyrocket. Many parts of the world are already experiencing population related problems. Right now there is virtually no population control in effect. Just 200 years ago the human race did well without using any fossil fuels and now many communities like the one I live in are very dependendent on them. Once the fossil fuels are gone then our community will suffer and there is no planning to prevent it. Just 200 years ago the county where I live was ranch land and wilderness. Today it is mostly urban and suburban and the push is to increase density. We are already running out of space. Many other counties in this state are going the same way. The human race is expanding as if space and resources are infinite but they are not.

      • Will,

        Population growth has been cut in half in the past 50 years and will keep falling. No planning is required. Demographic transition occurs without state planning. When people trust that two children will survive to adulthood, they quit having more to ensure that some survive.

        There is presently no man-made extinction event going on, although at a much lower level of technology in the past we did wipe out some species.

        Resources are effectively unlimited because human ingenuity is. This is why Malthusians have been wrong for 200 years and always will be.

        But if I’m wrong, then you’ll get your wish and human population will crash.

      • I wish that space and resources were effectively unlimited but I know that they are not. Maybe someday we can transport people to other planets but right now that is impossible. Maybe someday Many problems that some attribute to climate change are really causeed by Mankind’s out of control population. The more space that gets converted to optimum human use the more species will become extinct. Many are only still alive because of areas that have been set aside and conservation rules that may some day be broken. Where I live the Human population is being supported by the use of fossil fuels. When the fuel runs out this area cannot support so many people. Human population is not easy to quickly decrease with out catastrophy.

      • Will,

        How do you know that resources are limited? That is what doomsayers have claimed for centuries, and they have always been wrong. We have hundreds of year’s worth of FF left and after that fusion or other new energy sources.

        Same goes for space. Population is liable to stabilize at 10 billion or less. There is lots of space on land left and twice as much at sea.

      • The Earth is finite as are its resources and its space. Hundreds of years is not a very long time and that time is finite and when the resources are gone they are gone. Many problems that some like to attribute to climate change are not really climate change problems but human population problems.

      • Will,

        Human ingenuity is not finite. We will never run out of energy or resources.

        If all seven billion of us lived at the density of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California conurbation (7000 people per sq mi), we would occupy only a million square miles, less than the area of Argentina.

        So even when population stabilizes around ten billion people, there will be lots of room.

  5. As someone who was raised Catholic, Pope Francis behaves like someone who was raised in a Peronist country, and sounds like he is influenced by liberation theology. Neither is all that Catholic as such, and most American Catholics have experience in listening to the teachings of the Church, and making up our own minds as to what is right apart from those teachings. Whether in support for the death penalty, birth control, or this excursion into the greens theology, most American Catholics are more consistent with their social class and politics than their nominal religion.

  6. It is disappointing to realize that there is still a belief in magic among the ‘scientific’ community.

    • You mean like believing universes (by the megazillions) were spawned by vibrating “strings”, rendering the only one we have any way of observing; unspeakably conducive to our existence, but plausibly not designed, tadchem? Yeah, that one got me wondering too . . ; )

      • John,

        There is actually quite a lot of evidence for a multiverse.

        For an anthropomorphic sky spirit counting hairs on heads and the fall of sparrows and grading people on their performance on earth, not so much.

      • Gloteous,

        “There is actually quite a lot of evidence for a multiverse.”

        According to the article you linked . .

        “There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse”… But; … “First, it is useful to understand how our universe is believed to have come to be.”

        How are universe is believed to have come to be? Just “is believed”? . . Seriously? That doesn’t set off geeky propaganda alarms in your head?

        “For an anthropomorphic sky spirit counting hairs on heads and the fall of sparrows and grading people on their performance on earth, not so much.”

        Oh, so if you were generating a universe, you’d be sure not to include anything that resembled you in any significant way? Why? Seriously, please explain why that potential is so utterly outrageous to you. I mean, people make virtual “universes” now, and I’m not noticing any particular aversion to including things that resemble us in significant ways . . What convinces you that a being that could generate real universes would avoid including things that resembled itself to some extent? . .

        It appears to me to be a totally arbitrary judgment you’re summonsing for no rational reason at all, frankly . . as do the other notions you implied . . Is it just the idea that such an Entity might actually care about the living entities It generates? Why not? Why create them at all if It didn’t?

      • John,

        There is zero evidence for the sky spirit in which you chose to believe. Which is as it should be. Religion is based upon blind faith, which is why theologists of your cult claim that the spirit chooses to remain hidden. Faith is of no value if based upon reason.

        My point is that it’s ridiculous to claim that there is no evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, when in fact there is, while not caring that there is not only no evidence for a sparrow-counting sky spirit, but every reason to conclude that it doesn’t exist.

        But even if it did, it’s of no use to science, since it can’t explain anything. Why assume that universes or multiverses need to be created by some agency? Apparently it’s simply a property of space-time to contract into a singularity, then expand. That is a more scientific and satisfactory natural explanation than positing the existence of a bearded sky father.

      • Gloateus,

        “There is zero evidence for the sky spirit in which you chose to believe.”

        How could you possibly know that? Do you fancy yourself some sort of all knowing God yourself? Like, if you haven’t seen evidence (that convinces you), it can’t exist? How ’bout you step down from that narcissistic pinnacle for a moment, and speak as a man? How ’bout you stop worshiping your own imagination?

        I don’t choose to believe, O self worshiping one, I was convinced by evidence I witnessed/experienced first hand. But as for evidence all of us are well aware of, that something “supernatural” exists, I point to the history of the world. As far as I can tell, it is not disputed by anyone who studies that history that billions of people believed something supernatural was going on. That’s evidence, O self worshiper, and you believing they all believed it for no good reason, is you believing imaginary things, sir.

      • John,

        What people believed in the total absence of evidence is not evidence.

        That in past millennia people have believed in storm gods and fathers of the gods and gods in chariots riding across the sky, like your god Yahweh and the Greek god Apollo, is no sort of scientific evidence. It just shows that prescientific humans needed to make up stories to explain observations.

        Maybe if you shared some of your supernatural experiences with us, we might understand why you believe in evidence of things unseen.

      • “What people believed in the total absence of evidence is not evidence.”

        You are not an all-knowing God (it seems to me ; ), and you imagining that all those people had no good evidence they were resounding to, is a man imagining they didn’t, to me. There’s no logical reason for me to believe that you have mass mind reading powers that extend over all of space and time, and one wonders how you could not realize that makes your absolutist declarations about what they witnessed, tantamount to self delusion in the first degree, frankly . .

      • John,

        No special powers are needed to know that neither the World Turtle nor the World Elephant existed, though many believed that these mythical beasts bore the earth on their backs.

        Nor do I need godlike omniscience to know that Noah’s flood is a physically impossible myth, yet presumably some people have imagined that the fable actually happened, despite coming in two incompatible versions. Like the World Turtle, it’s a story made up to explain natural phenomena supernaturally rather than scientifically. In the case of the flood myth, it’s the rainbow. Instead of light refracted by water in the air, it’s a promise from the chief tribal god of the Hebrew tribes, ripped off from ancient Mesopotamian mythology.

        These and all the other myths are the same, just stories made up as explanations.

      • Gloateus Maximus February 5, 2017 at 6:32 pm said:

        “Nor do I need godlike omniscience to know that Noah’s flood is a physically impossible myth, yet presumably some people have imagined that the fable actually happened, despite coming in two incompatible versions. Like the World Turtle, it’s a story made up to explain natural phenomena supernaturally rather than scientifically. In the case of the flood myth, it’s the rainbow. Instead of light refracted by water in the air, it’s a promise from the chief tribal god of the Hebrew tribes, ripped off from ancient Mesopotamian mythology.”

        Mr Maximus, you are conflating two things – whether or not the Flood happened, for which there is evidence, and the stories told about it, for which there is also evidence – but they are not necessarily literal descriptions of the event.

        The Flood happened, a bit earlier than related in the Bible, some three thousand years earlier, but legends tend to be varied as the years go on. The Flood relates to the filling of the Black Sea, for which there is strong evidence. The pre-Flood shore line was some 130 metres or thereabouts below present day sea level. The remains of dwellings from that period have been found (and now this fact is used in at least one tale of derring-do I have read). When the Ice Age finished, and the ocean level had risen to accommodate the melt water, it was a few metres above present sea level. There was a “land bridge” connecting Europe and Asia at the eastern end of the Bosphorus, and eventually this was overtopped. As a result a trickle of water flowed over the “bridge” and the small stream excavated a deeper channel, which resulted in a torrent, and eventually a cataract far greater than any known today. There is a deep submarine channel which was excavated by the torrent. Undoubtedly there would be a substantial ‘mist’ as a result – cf the ‘mist’ from Niagara Falls. To the east this would become a massive continuous rainfall and the aborigines would have found the water level rising. There is a dispute among geologists, etc, as to how quickly the water would rise, and how long it would take to fill the Black Sea. Years? Months? Weeks?

        That is the physical fact. The legends are also ‘fact’ – in that they exist, and that they try to interpret what people on site saw. Whether there was a Noah, who was warned to build a raft – or had to build one to get from a village on a rise that had been cut off – we don’t know. Was his name was Noah or something else? Rather like the consensus of literary types who concluded that Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by someone else called Homer.

      • “No special powers are needed to know that neither the World Turtle nor the World Elephant existed, though many believed that these mythical beasts bore the earth on their backs.”

        And that somehow renders it impossible (to your mind) that anything supernatural exists? Can you even maintain a freaking line of reasoning, sir?

        “Nor do I need godlike omniscience to know that Noah’s flood is a physically impossible myth…”

        You a time traveler too? The words “physically impossible” have meaning, sir, and the world being covered by water is certainly physically possible. You need faith in some people who convinced you though, right? You know, like the many people who have been convinced that we’re on the verge of horrific climate catastrophe . . It’s not something one can directly observe themselves. It’s faith in human authority figures, right? Human authority figures can mess up, and perpetuate wrong notions, right? And they can generate hostile environments wherein certain lines of reasoning and research are verboten, eh? And raise up useful idiots to enforce their beliefs/interpretations of evidence, yes? That’s makes it not merely physically possible, to me.

        I don’t consider people who don’t realize it might have happened (might, mind you) to be truly scientific thinkers. Fakers, to me.

      • Dudley,

        There is no reason to imagine that the flood myth in the Bible refers to waters from the Med entering the Black Sea. The Mesopotamian myth picked up by the Hebrews bears no relation whatsoever to the actual geologic event in the Black Sea.

        In the Bible version of the myth, it rains for 40 days and nights and the wellsprings of the deep are opened. There is nothing at all said about a giant waterfall. Saltwater is not the source of the water, but fresh, from rain and groundwater. The Black Sea is far from the Fertile Crescent and its inundation occurred thousands of years before even the original Sumerian version of the story. Nor was the whole world flooded, but only the shores of the Black Sea, then a brackish lake.

        John,

        The biblical myth is plainly physically impossible. To cover the highest mountains would require 3.5 times all the water in the oceans of earth. Where did all that water come from and where did it go? Leaving aside the impossibility of all the life forms that would have to have been on the ark fitting onto it and being fed and cared for, whether two of each or seven. And of land plants and animals getting to Noah’s area from Australia, the Americas and oceanic islands.

        Clearly it is you who can’t follow a line of argument. First you say that there is no evidence for a multiverse, which there is, but that there is scientific evidence for a creator. But now you base your argument for such an entity not on science but upon the reality of supernatural events, which are imaginary, impossible and not in evidence.

      • “The biblical myth is plainly physically impossible.”

        Why can’t you say that’s how it seems to you? I’m very hesitant to worship your freaking imagination, sir, so please quit speaking as if I’m going to . .

        “To cover the highest mountains would require 3.5 times all the water in the oceans of earth.”

        Which rise and fall according to scientific measurements, right? And I read of a study recently that claimed there’s more water below the solid surface of the earth than above. And somehow, shells of sea creatures got up there on the top of Mt. Everest, ya know? Physically impossible is an extremely high hurdle in many cases, and this is certainly one, it seems to me.

        “Clearly it is you who can’t follow a line of argument. First you say that there is no evidence for a multiverse …”

        No I didn’t, you imagined it, sir.

        “But now you base your argument for such an entity not on science but upon the reality of supernatural events, which are imaginary, impossible and not in evidence.”

        I don’t even know what you imagined to come up with that . .

        Seriously, blind faith in human authorities (including their imaginations ; ) is not scientific thinking . . as I understand the words anyway.

      • John,

        It is not how it seems to me, but how it is.

        The water inside the earth is chemically bound up in rock. It didn’t get there from draining magically into the rock from a global flood.

        The highest mountains were effectively just as high 4500 years ago as now, and the continents in their present positions, within inches. Fossil seashells on mountain tops got there after millions of years of uplift.

        The creator god conjecture is not scientific because you can’t make testable predictions capable of being shown false based upon it.

      • John,

        I place no faith in human authorities. The scientific method requires just the opposite.

        The observed facts show the biblical myth to be physically impossible. I wonder if you have ever actually thought about the story, rather than just accepting its preposterous assertions on blind, unexamined faith.

        It’s not possible for all the water down 400 miles in the earth’s mantle, locked up in high pressure minerals like ringwoodite and wadsleyite to reach the surface in 40 days, then rapidly drain back down again. There might be an ocean’s worth of water down there, or even three, but no way to get it all at once en masse up to the surface and back down again.

        http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/scientists-detect-evidence-oceans-worth-water-earths-mantle/

        That leaves you with ground water in the crust and water vapor in the air. Genesis 7 says, “(I)n that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.”

        There is not even a tiny fraction enough water vapor and droplets in the atmosphere and ground water to cover the whole earth to 30,000 feet high.

        https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

        Ground water accounts for ~0.75% of water on and in the crust. Water in the atmosphere contributes another 0.036%, so being generous, call it 0.8% of water available to add to the oceans under the Genesis 7 scenario, if the air and ground are to become completely dry. Yet the oceans contain 96.5% of water, so about 337.8% would be needed to cover all the mountains. Thus, we come up some 338% short.

        Thirty thousand feet of water means 360,000 inches, so 9000 inches would have had to have fallen every day for 40 days over the whole planet, less whatever came from the ground. Does that sound reasonable to you?

        That’s what physical impossibility looks like.

      • And of course it would take more than 30,000 feet of water, since much would be absorbed by the ground before piling up to cover the highest mountains.

      • Gloateus,

        “The water inside the earth is chemically bound up in rock.”

        Some got into my glass, and I drank it . . seemed pretty much rock free . . ; )

      • PS~

        “The creator god conjecture is not scientific because you can’t make testable predictions capable of being shown false based upon it.”

        The no-creator god conjecture is not scientific because you can’t make testable predictions capable of being shown false based upon it. BFD

  7. Of course viewing a photo of the Pope would have a moral effect on the viewer. Amongst Roman Catholics it is likely to augment their moral senses. Amongst strict atheists it would be likely to diminish their moral senses. Moral effects, both ways.

    But would it do anything related to climate change? It is plausible that the proportion of Republicans who are Christians are less likely to be Roman Catholics than members of the reformed churches (think Methodists and Southern Baptists), whereas for Democrat voters the proportion of RCs is likely to be higher (think the Boston and New York Irish). So the Republicans are more likely to be put off by the Pope’s photo, or non-supportive, whereas Democrats are more likely to be increasingly supportive of the Pope’s views.

    And if you are both aware of the Pope’s views and interested in climate science, there would certainly be a tendency to think he is morally wrong to to espouse those views. Increase in your “perceptions of climate change as a moral issue”. QED.

  8. Pope Francis released a provocative encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si. Again few days back, he emphasised that destroying the environment is a sin. He further noted that humans are turning planet into wasteland of debris, desolation and filth and call for urgent action. Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Council for peace and justice, said, “The first step is to humbly acknowledge the harm we are doing to the Earth through pollution, the scandalous destruction of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity —”. Pope Francis further emphasised that “We must not be indifferent to the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of ecosystems, often caused by our irresponsible and selfish behavior”. He called for consumers to modify their modern lifestyles by reducing waste, planting trees, etc.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Yet there remains the call to produce as many offspring as possible. That is not consistent with reducing destruction of the ecosystem. More people means more stress.

      • “Yet there remains the call to produce as many offspring as possible.”

        Not so much from Francis. Early on he said something about there being no need to breed like rabbits, IIRC.

  9. Here we have the perfect example of the transition of scientific principle into socialist feelings. Pope Francisco, originally Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina, was not on a college trend when he finished Primary School, he then went into a Technical School to learn a useful trade (nothing wrong with that). After graduating with a “degree” (High School Diploma) in Chemical Technician, also adapted tp Biology Technician, he went into the Jesuit Ministry. Papa Francisco is a Socialist in the Eva Peron style and has recently stated that Liberation Theology was good for Latin America. Liberation Theology is what ex-President Obama heard in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This is the Climate Change expert some people want to front for them? This is an extraordinary revealing of the distortion of Science into Political Ideology, and at the heart of it is the Socialist mind-set. Climate Science is now drastically converted to feelings about inequality and injustice? I feel like I need a drink.

  10. Looking at a picture of Pope Francis stimulates my concerns about climate morality; but I doubt my thoughts about the morality of Pope Francis’ climate posturing will lead to the outcome the study authors appear to want.

    In moral suasion, the Pontiff has lost all power over this issue, and as a Roman Catholic I have nothing more than contempt for him. Be damned to the man, and to his perversion of the holy office.

  11. Some 300 years ago another Pope (Alexander, the poet) who lived up the Thames couple of miles away said:
    “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
    Well, not being catholic I wonder are there still around angels ascending to the magnificent dome of St. Peters.

  12. …But newly published research suggests the pontiff’s call for taking care of the Earth has had a more subtle impact on American public opinion. It finds brief exposure to a photograph of the pope “increased perceptions of climate change as a moral issue.”…This gap was particularly large among Republicans. Thirty-nine percent of those who were exposed to the pope’s image said they considered it a moral issue, compared to 30 percent among those who were not…

    Of COURSE it’s a moral issue!

    Fraud, outright lying and criminal deception by senior scientists MUST be a moral issue. How could anyone ever think it couldn’t be?

    And bring the Pope in to lie on their behalf? You don’t get much more immoral than corrupting the Head of the Catholic Church.

    This illustrates a classic difficulty with these silly polls. If I am asked whether Climate Change is a major problem or not, I’ll say “Of course it is! Corruption of science is a major problem”. And then I’ll be put down as supporting the IPCC view on Climate Change…

  13. None of the other recent Popes made comments about CO2 climate disaster.
    So his comments must be seen as his personal opinion rather than divine bngh

  14. The Pope should make flash cards out of these smoking gun issues if he really wants to educate the public on this issue.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/

    The Pope is going to seriously further damage the credibility of the church, and his pandering to the left is always a bad idea for a traditional organization. Here is the problem the Pope faces, he has aligned himself with some very very very amoral, unethical, deceitful and dishonest people. Basically, the Pope has been conned.

    Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/

    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/

    The Church should be arguing to redirect the money to solving real problems, not wasting it on political nonsense. This of all the good that could be done with this kind of money. This of all the suffering that could be ended with all this kind of money. Think of all the lives that could be saved with all this kind of money. The Pope is simply way off on this issue. Sorry to say it.

    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/

    • “his pandering to the left is always a bad idea for a traditional organization.”

      In the short and medium run advocating socialism and transfer payments from the West will aid the church’s recruitment efforts in the third world, which is its growth market and future center of gravity. Lots of new cardinals from there. So future popes will likely be in the Francis mold.

      • Roger,
        “In the short and medium run advocating socialism and transfer payments from the West will aid the church’s recruitment efforts in the third world, which is its growth market and future center of gravity. Lots of new cardinals from there. So future popes will likely be in the Francis mold.”

        A very astute comment.
        People –
        Please remember Roger’s comment.

        Auto – impressed.

  15. A new study “Brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral beliefs about climate change” claims looking at a picture of Pope Francis is more likely to cause Republicans to view climate change as a moral issue

    The moral issue is returning integrity to science, the moral issue is removing corruption from the politicization of science.

    Cardinal Virtues:
    1. Prudence
    2. Temperance
    3. Justice
    4. Fortitude

    Climate Change Virtues:
    1. Expediency
    2. Opportunism
    3. Sophistry
    4. Deception

    IMHO, the Pope has joined the wrong side of this argument. He should be teaching real science so people could better understand God’s creation. God isn’t a fool, he wouldn’t build a system with a natural doomsday boom in it. He wouldn’t make the Earth a fragile snowflake. Also, nowhere in the Bible does it mention man causing Climate Change, that was always God’s role.

    What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-forensic-files-exhibit-w/

  16. I guess if you believe this pope you also believe in communism as the way to run the world. From his support of Maduro to the Castros he has shown his true colors. He cloaks the brutality of totalitarianism in a shroud of Christianity. It’s really a shame to see, especially after John Paul II.

    • chilemike,

      He cloaks the brutality of totalitarianism in a shroud of Christianity.

      That’s one of the most concise, accurate descriptions I’ve read.

  17. Knowing the opinions on Pope Francis on a wide range of issues, my vision of his image has only caused disgust.

  18. Let’s see who the authors are:

    Jonathon Schuldt: Assistant Professor of Communication, Cornell University since summer of 2012.
    Adam R. Pearson, Ph.D:Assistant Professor of Psychology, Pomona College. Ph.D., Social Psychology, Yale University, 2011.
    Rainer Romero-Canyas, PhD:Adjunct Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University , Social Behavioral Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.
    Dylan Larson-Konar: Could not find definite info. Found Dylan Larson-Konar who is an English major at Princeton University, but would fit in with Psych and communications BS.

    So, NO climate scientists among them. All psychology, communications, behavioral, or otherwise unqualified. They did, however, manage to achieve the goal of their propaganda in the conclusion:

    This gap was particularly large among Republicans.

  19. When carbon-based life forms are taught their very breath is carbon pollution, it appears to me the church of CAGW uses the same ‘flaw’ in the human psyche the Catholics do; ‘original sin’.

    • When carbon-based life forms are taught their very breath is carbon pollution, it appears to me the church of CAGW uses the same ‘flaw’ in the human psyche the Catholics do; ‘original sin’.

      God creates a carbon based ecosystem, and the leftists make carbon the doomsday bomb of life. The absolute insanity of this issue is beyond comprehension.

    • Very good. #2 above is relevant to the Climate Religion vs scientific inquiry historically.

      The substance of the Inquisitions trial of Galileo was that 97% of scientists thought that the earth is the immovable center of the universe.

      Then as now, the consensus of men who call themselves scientists is irrelevant to the truth of a claim about a matter of fact.

      • I always see the skeptics as the inquisition and climate science as Galileo…

        While skeptics are busy cherrypicking and denouncing things as leftist conspiracies, the climate data continues to tick on, pointing at only one conclusion.

        “Eppur si muove”

      • Griff,

        While skeptics are busy cherrypicking and denouncing things as leftist conspiracies, the climate data continues to tick on, pointing at only one conclusion.

        Once again, Griff buries his head in the sand and posts an irrelevant comment that completely misses the point of this post, but staunchly supports his religious beliefs (hey, maybe it is relevant). This post is about a pseudo-scientific behavioral psychology study of the Pope’s encyclical letter Laudato Si’ that comes to a completely irrelevant, political conclusion. This has nothing to do with climate data. That was completely debunked in the Karl post.

      • That’s why you are the definition of ‘useful idiot’ Griff. Correct me if I’m wrong but the government is the one saying ‘the science is settled! We need not look at your arguments! The debate is over!’

      • Griff: I think you deserve the “Cherry Picker of the Year” award for putting in only those ideas with which you agree.
        Also, this is NOT about climate science, it’s about the MARKETING of an idea. It has nothing to do with the science, only how to trick people into going along. You member the old gypsy wagons and tonics and elixirs? This is the same thing. Who can cry out the message and entice people into buying the product? The worth or truth of the product is 100% separate from this action.

      • It wasn’t so much the scientists (the few there were in that day), but the academic philosophers, especially the Aristotelians. They pursued Galileo’s indictment because his work, based as it was on experiment and observation, threatened their entire theoretical edifice. They were the equivalent of today’s intolerant academic left.

      • Pay,

        Galileo might have been able to get away with ridiculing Aristotelian philosophers, but not Pope Urban VIII (Florentine noble Maffeo Barberini). The pope asked Galileo to include his (Urban’s) geocentric arguments in the “Dialogue”, which GG did, but the heliocentric scientist put them in the mouth of the sputtering dunce character Simplicio. Urban was not amused. Hence GG was tried by the Roman Inquisition, convicted of heresy and sentenced to house imprisonment.

  20. In case you have not noticed what is going on among the leftist academics it is this —

    THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW GOEBBELS DID IT!!!

    Somebody needs to study these people. They could call the study — Propaganda Envy Among The Climatologists — or — Channeling Goebbels.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  21. Further proof, as if any more were needed, that belief in CAGW is a matter of religious faith, not of scientific inquiry.

    More of the same:

    “Faith leaders reframe climate change as moral issue” By Marion Renault in The Columbus Dispatch on Jan 13, 2017
    http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170113/faith-leaders-reframe-climate-change-as-moral-issue/1

    “In recent years, faith-based advocacy has emerged as a powerful tool in the environmental movement. By reframing climate change and sustainability as moral issues, religious leaders hope to advance environmentalism by elevating it above the political fray.

    * * *

    “Americans report fairly high levels of spirituality, but most do not view climate change as a moral issue, according to a 2015 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

    * * *

    “Hitting people in the head with science doesn’t get them in the heart,” said Deborah Steele, … “What gets people is a matter of conscience and not the logic of science.”

    * * *

  22. Did they perform the null experiment where they show flash cards of Al Gore and Christopher Monckton?

    Methinks they have not been ‘scientific’ in their approach to unraveling their own self-inflicted confusion.

  23. Some three billion people lack reliable electricity to refrigerate food and meds, cook their food, pump clean water, and light their homes after dark.They live in or close to poverty.
    THAT’S the moral issue.
    “The poor you have always with you”. Seems Francis is determined to keep it so.

  24. This drek and the “Lew etal” paper. These studies “analyze” anyone who could examine evidence and form their own conclusion and not blindly follow. These types of true thinkers are painted as odd and wrong and in need of their help.

    Their hubris is sickening.

  25. This Catholic does not follow this non Catholic “pope”. He is the antithesis of John Paul I I. One fought commies the other is one

  26. If the Global Alarmists hope to win over Catholics with church sponsorship they are making a huge tactical error.

    As a lapsed catholic, I can attest to the fact that my skepticism over CAGW is founded in the uncomfortable similarity of the fear and guilt tactics that I was raised with in the Catholic church, now practiced by World Governments through the UN-IPCC .

    People can believe that the climate changes as sure as they believe in God. The Catholic Church preached that you could only reach God through Catholicism. The UN-IPCC Preaches that you can only be saved from Global Warming through Government. Neither have proof of their theories.

  27. What the paper did not address is that such “improvement” is never lasting. Why do you think it takes multiple times of seeing an advertisement before it moves you to buy? You may think “What a great idea” but odds are you’re not rushing out to buy. You wait, see the ad again, consider further. Odds are good no one thought a thing about climate change after this “study”, whether or not they were “moved” by the picture of the Pope. Many probably cranked up the furnace if it was cold outside, drove around in their SUV and never gave this a second thought. It might come back to them next time they see a photo of the Pope, but unless the picture is in front of them 24/7, the idea just doesn’t stick, if it ever does.

  28. Only moral issue I see when looking at a picture of the Pope is his complete moral failure in cleaning up the sexual deviants in his church.
    Such a man hold no ground to tell others how to behave and what to think.

  29. If the pope could bother himself to clean up the world-wide & ongoing priest sex with little boys issue, he might have more credibility on other issues.

    In any event, you’d think the church would have learned it’s lesson on the divide between science and religion with the Galileo incident.

  30. This is absurd. The pope just this week applauded “liberation theology” which has been roundly deplored by Christians as Marxism in disguise. His Argentine roots are showing. For the good of the Catholic Church, it’s time for this time to go.

  31. What these authors are attempting to measure is the effectiveness of using the Pope as an alarmist propaganda tool. What is the morality of this? What is the morality of the Pope participating in, or acquiescing to, being used for propaganda?

    Also, the Pope (and the alarmists) are fretting about the morality of a hypothetical – that human behavior is causing “dangerous climate change” – a hypothesis for which the evidence is thin to non-existent. What about the morality of doing economic damage by “fighting hypothetical climate change” This is already doing real harm which disproportionately affects the Pope’s supposedly beloved poor.

  32. The vast majority of Catholics don’t revere, worship or listen to the Pope.

    Western reporters and western politicians like promoting the Pope, because the old church model of sheep and shepherds aligns so well with their own preference for how the world should work, i.e., Do what your leaders say without question, for you are too stupid to think for yourself.

    An establishment “skeptic” at the The Age newspaper in Melbourne once asked his audience what they thought kids should be learning at school to immunize them against stupid ideas. When his small audience repeatedly suggested “the logical fallacies” and “reasoning skills”, the writer of the “skepticalscience” column had nothing to say…

    …not a word. It was as if he didn’t like the idea at all.

    And that’s the truth of the matter: the ruling-caste don’t want the “great unwashed” eating fruit from the tree of knowledge. Just believe what we say and obey.

  33. It is a sign of our times.

    Certain people will use “Science”, “Islam”, “Catholisism”, etcetera, to further their political ends. They also pay psychologists and various academic wannabes to tell them how to abuse the above concepts to bend the populace to their will. In doing so they usually corrupt the basic underlying principles, which is why I put all three examples above in quotation marks.

    • Well, even if you don’t adhere to anything else, you gotta admit that Mariah can blow a song out of the water like no other.

      Now if we could just get her singing about truth in climate science, then I think the tables might turn for the better. (^_^)

  34. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Wallenstein

    didn’t hire managers – his career was built on astrology.

    Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Wallenstein (About this sound pronunciation ; Czech: Albrecht Václav Eusebius z Valdštejna;[1] 24 September 1583 – 25 February 1634),[2] also von Waldstein, was a Bohemian[a] military leader and politician who offered his services, and an army of 30,000 to 100,000 men, during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II. He became the supreme commander of the armies of the Habsburg Monarchy and a major figure of the Thirty Years’ War.

  35. The study results support the idea of psychological priming. That is, associating an idea with a symbol so that the attributes of the symbol get attached to the idea. It’s been demonstrated in numerous times and ways. That’s why the climate propagandists use cuddly polar bears and baby seals as symbols, for example. How effective the transfer of good feelings is to personal responsibility is questionable for mature people; for the young who lack experience and judgement it might be stronger.

  36. It is very interesting and strange that so many of us call “scientists” stupefied policy and did not know the power relationship of the sun and planets, according to what we Avak weak stimulate the energy, we can change in relation to climate.
    I have to repeat, climate change and global warming on the planets, to the consequences of mutual relations of the planet, each other and the sun.
    I’m interested in why you are in your newspaper do not have any interest to publish prove to refute all previous stupid ideas and theories on climate change, and on this idea is in vain, spent several tens of trillions of dollars, why?
    Is there any tool that will influence to awaken those who believe in the truth.

  37. It IS a proven psychological technique (trick?) to trigger positive emotions.
    Question: If I get warm fuzzy thoughts about climate change when I see a picture of the Pope, what is it I’m supposed to feel when I see the famous picture of Gina Lollobrigida coming out of the water from the film ‘Boy on a Dolphin’?

  38. It makes me think more about the other current headlines about the Catholic Church coming out of Australia today.

  39. When do they start in with the climate change chants and phrases on elevators and in-store music subliminal messaging? There are few areas left for the psych ops teams to explore.

Comments are closed.