Vatican archbishop: All should accept that global warming is a fact

I have struggled to think of appropriate commentary on this, but feel I can’t say anything that is not potentially insulting to some Catholics or is overtly political, so I’ll let the story speak for itself.~ctm

Pope Francis and Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo

Vatican archbishop: All should accept that global warming is a fact

Lisa Bourne Follow Lisa

From: LIFE SITE NEWS

 

 

ROME, Italy, July 19, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences has again inferred that denial of the controversial concept of manmade climate change equates to flat earth mentality.

“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

The archbishop has been a consistent and zealous promoter of manmade climate change as a non-negotiable Church issue, despite the status of care for the environment as a prudential matter.

Climate change ideology continues to be contested as a ploy perpetrated with manipulated data by the left to enact environmental regulations and taxes.

Even so, Archbishop Sorondo dismissed deniers of climate change in a recent Vatican Radio interview as “a small, negligible minority.”

The interview conducted in German contained the headline: “Vatican: ‘Climate change is a fact,’” and centered on reception of Pope Francis’ eco-encyclical Laudato Si’ two years after its release.

Archbishop Sorondo went on in the interview to say that human-affected climate change was considered science. He added that the pope not only has the right but also the duty to rely on science in addition to doctrine and philosophy in seeking out truth.

If the pope expresses himself on such a subject, then this was not arbitrary, he said, as the pope’s words are not restricted to the area of ​​”doctrine of faith and morals.”

The pope makes use of the truths of science or philosophy to not only explain to man how to get to heaven, said the archbishop, but also what he must do on earth.

All human activities have to do with ethics, the Argentinean archbishop said, so they are already within the jurisdiction of the pope.

Archbishop Sorondo is a close adviser to Pope Francis and the Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. He has repeatedly welcomed pro-abortion and population control advocates to the Vatican for conferences under the pretext of the climate issue.

Last month, just before President Donald Trump announced the U.S. would pull out of the controversial Paris Climate Agreement, the archbishop likened climate ideology skeptics to flat-earthers as well.

Withdrawal from the Paris accord “would not only be a disaster but completely unscientific,” he said.

“Saying that we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the earth is not round,” Archbishop Sorondo stated. “It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money.”

He has also repeatedly made the claim that those who don’t subscribe to the manmade climate change theory are in some way subsidized by the oil industry. He did so again in the Vatican Radio interview.

“Of course, some sectors that depend on the oil lobby — including some Catholic institutions! — do not agree with Laudato Si’,’” the archbishop stated. “And with this they are causing serious damage, because the climate is deteriorating — even the opponents of climate change will be among their victims, in the short or long term.”

Read the full story here:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Haigh

Aye. Right. Like the virgin birth and resurrection.

Wally

Indeed, something’s wrong here when religious True Believers start touting ‘science’.
But then again, ‘global warming’ IS a religion.

Sceptical Sam

Well, the Roman Catholic Church has always been totalitarian in nature.
This year, 2017, is the 500th Anniversary of the man who brought it to account.
But still it remains the font of totalitarian thought. The green-Marxist left and the RCC are bed fellows made in the image of each other.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_500_yearold_lesson_from_martin_luther.html

Rising temperatures due to data manipulation, study shows.
SOURCES: Daily Caller and On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding
‘Nuff said?

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

The Vatican’s got 3 chances that I “should accept” anything from them, buckley’s, effall and none!

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

Oh yeh.. And praying seems to be just as effective as spending trillion$ to cool the planet.

I Came I Saw I Left

We know the world has entered a strange place when scientists as a matter of course make false prophecies about the imminent end of the world, and the Catholic church tells us to follow fake science.

Wally – “global warming IS a religeon” and politicians are politicians, no matter what color hat they are wearing.

Philo

It’s about time to leave all this “God talk” and proofs of existence or religious belief controversies. They simply cannot be resolved by anything humans can do.
Belief is exactly that. Acceptance of an idea that cannot be proven. Their is no argument with belief because a belief is not an argument, it is simply a statement of belief. It is simply an idea in the mind of a believer. Everyone has beliefs that cannot be proven because all systems of logical, illogical, rational, mathematical thought are incomplete. You can make an unproveable statement in any system of discussion.
It’s even more ridiculous to argue the concept of “God”- an infinite, omnipotent, all powerful being with no beginning and that has no end. There’s nothing to argue. God encompasses any thought or argument and can’t be explained by it. The human mind can come up with many ideas that are unprovable. The arguments can only be about their utility and how they can be used to order thoughts, relationships, and society with desirable consequences. With serious discussion we can come to some conclusions as to how the idea of “God” affects thinking, relationships, and society. We can also understand that with a clear thinking of what the idea of “God ” means to governing human relations.

ricksanchez769

Ya, hey Pope, remember that issue the Church had with Copernicus and Galileo ?

Deaner220

Forgot about Galileo?

SteveC

At least the virgin birth and resurrection can stand the test of time.

Jimmy Haigh

If you believe one fairy story…

Tom in Florida

That is a testament to the brain washing of children that goes on in the Catholic church.

behavioral psychology is not THAT difficult!!!

jim

One of the Bible’s metrics for a prophet of God is 100% accuracy in predictions. Given Climate Science predictions are off this metric by at least two orders of magnitude, I’d say the RCC should be careful here.

Pamela Gray

I have to correct this narrative about “virgin” birth. In ancient texts, the words used that have now been translated into “virgin” (meaning before sex) have been mistranslated. Hebrew and Arabic words connotated “before first menstration” and had nothing to do with whether or not a female had been plucked. The goal was to be engaged to a female prior to her first menstruation, and even better, get her pregnant prior to her first menstration. Which can be done but the timing results in a very rare occurance. If the couple were lucky enough for this to happen, the woman was considered to be pure and without need of the required 10-day cleansing period. Thus she gave birth while still a “virgin”. And of course, if it was a boy, the boy was given tremendous honors and was considered to be a holy child.
With regard to the story of Mary, the controversy continues about whether or not subsequent children were born. If they were, they of course would not be considered to be of “virgin birth”, since Mary was required to go through her 10 day cleansing period following sessation of bleeding after giving birth the first time. In other words, after giving birth, Mary would have been considered to now be “unclean” because of subsequent blood emission.
In nearly every ancient culture, first menstruation was the turning point in a female’s life, not first sexual encounter.

Sceptical Sam

Pamela,
@Pamela Gray July 24, 2017 at 7:34 am
Thank you for that correction. It makes a great deal of sense too.
The controversy of whether other children were born to the happy Mary/Joseph couple has been the topic of so much subjective dogma as to keep the sophisticates buzzing for Millenia. The RCC has always held itself to be oracle on this subject, as on so many others including now, it would seem, global warming.
Perhaps the current Pope should reconvene the Congress of Nicaea and establish the RCC’s “Nicaean Green Creed” to sit alongside the original. I wonder how the vote would go? Would the deniers, like poor old Arius, be sent to Coventry or burnt to a crisp while lashed to a stake? Or would they just suffer the ignominious end of the Cathars?
James of Jerusalem, has been described as the brother of Jesus. Yes, they had the same mother (as in Mary – the mother of God) but a different father. Same mother, different father. Not the first time it’s happened. I’ve always wondered who was the father of the mother of God.
Mary was made pregnant apparently by God. Jesus was the progeny of that union we’re told.
Joseph was not God. So he could not have been the father. Joseph subsequently made Mary pregnant as well. She got about that one. James of Jerusalem was the result. A half-brother to Jesus. And, there were others too. Jesus grew up in a family that included four half-brothers; James, Joses, Simon and Judas with a couple of sisters as well (see Matthew 13:55-56).
James was ahead of his time. He held that a follower of Jesus must prove his faith by his good works and that those works perfected his faith. “…man is justified by works, and not by faith only,” (James 2:24). He and Paul – the victim of a zap from a ball lightning bolt – didn’t quite see eye to eye on that. Paul, who never met James’ brother Jesus, pushed the meme that belief was all it took. Was he was the original greenie?

afonzarelli

“Like the virgin birth and resurrection.”
With God all things are possible. Why should these tenets of faith be compared with something as demonstrably doubious as climate change?

“With God all things are possible. Why should these tenets of faith be compared with something as demonstrably doubious as climate change?”
Without God these things are impossible.
It is the existence of God that has to be proven in the first place.
Care to try? Nobody was able to do it in more than 5000 years.

afonzarelli

There are proofs all over the place. This year is the 100th anniversary of the apparitions at fatima, the october 1917 ‘miracle of the sun’ being the greatest theophany of modern times. It was enough to put atheists, like yourself, in the mental ward. (you might want to start there)…

Leo Smith

With God all things are possible.

I think you win first prize today for the most meaningless statement on WUWT.
Here is the second
“Infinity is greater than One”.

JohnKnight

Alexander Feht,
“It is the existence of God that has to be proven in the first place.”
Proven to whom? You? The same “scientific community” that backs the CAGW?
“Care to try? Nobody was able to do it in more than 5000 years.”
God has (obviously) been able to do it, to a great many individuals (including me, who was a “strong agnostic” until He did prove His existence to me, to my utter amazement). Christ said there would be no sign, meaning no blatant display such as was provided several times to the children of Israel, and others . . until the “sign of the son of man” appears in the heavens, right before He returns.
Now, I realize you can’t take my word for His existence, as I could not take anothers, but you can ask Him for “proof” . . and as I said, many, including a many famous scientists, have “testified” that He did so to their satisfaction. I recommend being open minded about it.

Guys, please stop baiting the Christian right would you. I make Dawkins look like the Pope on these issues but nevertheless I’m 100% aligned with the Christians in the fight against the horrors of Islam and the lies of the globalists with their ‘climate change’ h0ax. Adversity makes for strange bed fellows.

afonzarelli

(Leo, coming from an atheist i take that as a compliment… ☺)

Gloateus

It surprises me how many Christians miss the point that the existence of God cannot ever be “proven”, nor should any believer want or expect it to be. Faith must be irrational to have value. Hence, God, if He, She or It exist, must remain hidden.
If God could be rationally “proven” to exist, why would there be any need for faith. Belief must be blind. Catholic Scholastic philosophers imagined they could prove the existence of God, but of course failed miserable. Luther wisely understood that a proof was not only impossible, but fundamentally theologically wrong. For Protestants, salvation is by faith not “works”.
Calvin went even farther than Luther down this road, and IMO, correctly from the standpoint of biblical theology.
This is why it’s also fundamentally anti-Christian to try to inject faith into science. There is no science in the pre-scientific Bible and those who try to twist its words in an effort to find some modern science in it not only must fail, but are wrong theologically as well as scientifically.

Gloateus

Cephus,
Would Dawkins have been banned from CA radio had he called Christianity instead of Islam “the greatest force for evil in the world today”?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/richard-dawkins-hits-back-cancellation-232927736.html
I think not!

Gloateus

JohnKnight July 23, 2017 at 3:24 am
Since God proved His existence to you, then your belief in Him is not a matter of faith, but of evidence.

Ian Macdonald

Virgin birth is actually possible, if rare. It always results in a female child though. Resurrection, the simple answer there is that he wasn’t dead. After all, medical skills in those days were limited, and even today there have been a few cases of people being pronounced dead who have revived.
The really illogical one though, is Atonement. Woman goes into man’s garden and eats apple without his permission. In response, man starts vendetta against woman’s entire family. Everyone says this is a tad excessive, after all it was only a damn apple, for heaven’s sake. Many years later, garden owner agrees to resolve this by sending a hit man to murder his own son. Somehow, this is supposed to set things right. Exactly why, I’m not sure.

Frank DeMaris

“He wasn’t dead”, hogwash. Even with modern medicine available immediately, you wouldn’t survive what Jesus went through. Remember that, to verify he had already died, one soldier trust a spear into the cardio-pulmonary cavity so that a mixture of blood and what appeared to be water came out. Emergency cardiac surgery to try to repair the damage while pumping him full of replacement blood might do the trick, but that’s a big if and wasnt available then anyway. The religious leadership at the time had a better story, claiming that his disciples stole the body while the guards slept.

jorgekafkazar

It wasn’t an apple. The thing is an allegory, anyway, an attempt to address the “Problem of Evil.”
Crucifixion produces certain signs that it has resulted in death. You don’t want to know the details. A spear through the rib cage to the heart takes care of any doubt. This was done publicly, in the open, with the victim’s name on a sign, where many could observe it.

Leo Smith

Oh dear, Come on now Ian, you surely understand the rôle of mythology in culture?
The parable of the garden of Eden is at two levels, first of all it is a parable of consciousness itself., and the apple of knowledge is the gift of self consciousness at which point eve understands herself to be Eve in her nakedness, and sin becomes possible because objective thought has become possible and instead of simply living in the eternal Now. man becomes a conflicted being with a probable past and possible futures and gets all confused between what he thinks is the case, and what is actually going on. The original Sin of Self consciousness.
And it also probably harks back to an early tribes experience in having to move out of a rather nice habitat because of Climate change. Of which there was a lot more in those days than there is now.

Ian Macdonald

“Crucifixion produces certain signs that it has resulted in death. You don’t want to know the details. ”
No thanks, and I find it somewhat disturbing that Christians seem to take such great relish in describing torture.

decnine

So, Jesus was actually a tr*nny?

Ian Macdonald

“Remember that, to verify he had already died, one soldier trust a spear into the cardio-pulmonary cavity so that a mixture of blood and what appeared to be water came out. ”
My understanding is that dead bodies don’t bleed. Therefore, this could be a really big problem. Suppose he was still alive, and the spear was what killed him? In that case, the cost of worldwide replacement of all those crosses with spears could be significant. Also the rewriting of all those hymns that refer to crosses.
https://xkcd.com/459/

JohnKnight

Leo,
“The parable of the garden of Eden is at two levels, first of all it is a parable of consciousness itself., and the apple of knowledge is the gift of self consciousness…”
Not quite, it seems to me, after careful consideration. If one reads the account, one will find that “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” and then “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat”. That indicates to me that it was her imagination which was stimulated, by the tempter, and she bit, so to speak ; )
This metaphorical use of
eating to signify taking in (and believing) in a psychological sense, appears many times throughout to Book. Consider Rev 3:16;
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

R Taylor

Ian, you’re omitting that the owner of the garden invited the woman in to enjoy the garden on the one condition that she wouldn’t eat an apple. (And she wasn’t even hungry).
Regarding “The Church”, my only criticism of it is that it thinks it is more than a human institution operated by fallible humans. However, “secular” institutions seem to feel the same way about themselves and not many have done as much good for as many for as long.

South River Independent

Mr. Macdonald, clearly you do not understand the concept of miracles (or of Faith). Miracles, by definition, cannot be explained by natural causes (i.e., science).

richard verney

Too right. What does the Archbishop know or understand about the matter.
It is like a leading scientist telling the church all should accept that it is a fact that God does not exist, and Jesus was not the son of God, and there will be no resurrection.

Robert from oz

Nothing really new here let’s face it , religion = CAGW= faith .

JohnKnight

Do you have faith in the scientific method, Robert? I assume you do, though you probably prefer to use a synonym like ‘confidence’. That’s all the term means in a religious context, despite much fanciful insinuating and evoking done by anti-religious types . . whom you may have faith in ; )

M Seward

and from the outfit that fought tooth and nail against the reality that thousands of its ground troops, sworn to celibacy, were paedophiles and worse. What possible place could there be for skeptics, eh?

Count to 10

Thousands?
I have no skin in this game, but didn’t the accuser who started the whole circus recently admit he lied about the whole thing?

South River Independent

The scandal was largely homosexual priests having sex with adollescent males, not strictly pedophilea, I think the Church went wrong by failing to recognize that sexual deviancies are some form of mental disorder caused by arrested psychological development. Of course, the LBGT lobby has managed to shut down all research into this area. Science does show that the sexually deviant lifestyle is extremely unhealthy, physically and mentally.

Gloateus

SRI,
Trying to justify raping adolescent boys is disgraceful. Even if they were 14 to 17 years old, they are still legal minors in most states (all states for 14 & 15 year-olds), and worse yet, under the authority of the priest rapists.
Nor were all the victims boys in this age group. Even girls 13 and younger were raped and abused:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_6698.shtml

Ian Macdonald

Then again, even where there is no sexual abuse there is frequently sadomasochism, for example young kids being subjected to detailed descriptions of how crucifixion kills the victim. I have little doubt that many of the expounders of this stuff ‘get off’ on torture.
If we consider sadistically violent films unsuitable for minors, why do we allow this stuff in the faith-school classroom?

South River Independent

Gloateus – I am not trying to justify anything. I said “largely.” Can you read?

Gloateus

SRI,
If you weren’t trying to justify pedophilia, then why did you claim that priests abusing teenaged boys under 18 wasn’t pedophilia?

South River Independent

Gloateus, pediphilia refers to sexual feelings or activity by adults with pre-pubescent children.

Silversufter

Facts like the facts the inquisition used to extract? The Roman Catholic Church has no credibility when it comes to facts be they historic or present day.

Goldrider

These are the guys who excommunicated Galileo and wanted to execute him, remember? The Church should tend to the spiritual, and stay out of secular politics.

Count to 10

the funny thing is that the Galileo affair was more a private dispute than a scientific one, showcased the corruption in the system rather than its dogmatism, and Galileo was most stubbornly attached to the part of his theory that was incorrect.

lordsunhawk

Galileo was actually wrong, though. If you used his theory and calculations you couldn’t predict anything at all about the movement of the planets since he insisted on circular orbits. He was also a complete and total douche who completely alienated the entire scientific establishment of his time by plagiarizing them then insulting them while hiding behind the skirts of his patron (the Pope, incidentally) What brought him down was when he decided to turn his acid tongue on the Pope himself, and lost that protection.

Gloateus

lordsunhawk July 23, 2017 at 8:02 am
You are mistaken. People can and did use the Copernican system to predict planetary motions. The problem is that, given circular orbits, you still need some of the ad hoc fixes, such as the equant and epicycles, required by the Ptolemaic system.
With the addition of Kepler’s elliptical orbits, however, the need for such adjustments goes away.

Neo

Galileo Galilei was unavailable for comment.

Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo is making pseudoscientific claims about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Criticism should be directed toward the flaws in his reasoning rather than being aimed at religious beliefs in general. Such off-topic animosity can and likely will be used by the warmists to support their efforts to propagandize people with religious beliefs. Let’s not give aid and comfort to the enemy by getting distracted away from the important issues.

waterside4

Thank you Ralph. Yes it saddens me that instead of refuting the pagan belief of this Malthusian arch bishops junk science, this forum is being used to abuse Catholics in general. I understand our venerable host Mr Watts is a cradle Catholic like myself. But I want to put on record that I do not subscribe to the anti human belief system of Mann made global warming which our present Pope accepts as gospel.
It would be nice if our estimable contributors could stick to refuting the Vatican’s junk science, instead of attacking Catholicism in general. After all Osama bin Laden was a global warming advocate. Where is the
vilification of the “Religion of peace” I wonder.
It is about time bloggers stick to the point, and do a scientific analysis of the stupidity of this Marxist pre late.

I’m adding the quote here because it’s funny; but don’t assume to know what I believe:
“Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.” – Anonymous

A prime example of what I was talking about above. I wonder how people making the anti-religious comments here are working for and perhaps even getting paid by the Green Blob.

how many

DonM

3.2

Well 1 less than you think; I wish I could get paid by the green blob.

Severian

And don’t forget transubstantiation. And the Earth isn’t round, it’s an oblate spheroid.

TA

From the article: ““From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.”
Severian wroe: “And the Earth isn’t round, it’s an oblate spheroid.”
Yes, Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo is wrong about the Earth being round, and he is wrong about claiming to know for certain that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. That’s two strikes, Archbishop.
Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo needs to go back to school and needs to quit lecturing the rest of us on things he obviously knows little about.

Gloateus

To paraphrase a great American, it’s not just that the prelate knows so little, but that all he thinks he knows is wrong.

TRM

I give you the comic philosopher of my generation!!

Ian

Genius!

Menicholas

This is the worst thing to happen to the church since, well…:
https://youtu.be/Y-zMZnY76Qk

Carbon BIgfoot

He’s still smarting when Pope John said we can eat meat on Friday—-he and his family were fish mongers.

Trebla

Yes, like the absolute certainty that the Earth is the center of the solar system not the Sun, and a lengthy prison sentence for Galileo for daring to challenge the consensus science of the day. These guys should stick to what they know, like the existence of heaven and hell and saints and all that irrefutable religious consensus stuff.

You first- Vatican- cut yourself off the Italian grid- the Vatican power supply only says one thermoelectric generator. Ready for total night darkness.

Louis LeBlanc

Having been a devout Catholic for 40 years until leaving the Church, I am saddened by the continued
lack of balance coming from Catholic prelates and their apparent ignorance of the non-cataclysmic view of global warming. He should have compared not believing in catastrophic global warming to not believing the earth is the center of the universe.

Yes, the last time the church decided what was and what was not science, it took centuries for the errors to be acknowledged. The only time the state or church seems to get involved with controversial science is when they want to push the wrong side.

Count to 10

Planetary nebulae are the remnants of supernova.

Count to 10

Oops, that somehow landed in the wrong place

Greg

Wasn’t the Vatican the original “flat Earth society” ?!
They spent centuries denying the scientific evidence for a heliocentric “universe” because they were convinced that they were the centre of creation.

“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

So who is saying that human activity does not warm the Earth, to some unspecified amount? Didn’t the US senate , stuffed full of Republican “denyerz” vote 98-2 that global warming was real.
All of the “denyerz” who were called to give evidence to congress : Christy, Curry Pielke Jr, agree that CO2 causes warming. This is a non argument.

Robert from oz

Doesn’t heat require energy ? Is there any object/ material that’s man made or natural that can contain heat without loss ?
Not that I’m aware of but happy to learn .

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

All the carbon in the universe was created in supernovas. Not my fault and 100% natural. There, I said it.

Tim Groves

All the carbon in the universe was created in supernovas. Not my fault and 100% natural. There, I said it.
Last century, when I studied astrophysics, we were taught that all the lighter elements up to iron and including carbon are produced in ordinary stars but that supernova explosions produce the heavier elements.

All the hot air coming from the US Senate is alone enough to raise the average temp in DC by 10 degrees F. Though we would collectively class that as heat island effect, NOAA will make the appropriate adjustments to the surrounding data points.

Count to 10

Tim Groves, it’s true, stars can generate elements up to iron without a supernova, but I don’t think much of the heavier stuff gets out without one.

Menicholas

“…I don’t think much of the heavier stuff gets out without one.”
It gets out, via multiple mechanisms in several particular types of stars.
perhaps the most widely known way that elements lighter that iron are freed from confinement inside of stars is by and planetary nebulae. Carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen compose a large percentage of most of these cast-off outer shells of stars.
But, lots of heavier elements are cast off by certain stars continuously, via their stellar winds, some of which are incredibly powerful.
There is a common misperception that the elements forged in stars via fusion in the core are locked there, and do not mix with the bulk of the star. This is true for some types of stars, but completely false for others.
There are plenty of stars that undergo very strong convective processes from the core outwards, and some of these bring elements produced in the core right to the surface.
In particular, the smaller a star, the less of what is produced in it’s core gets out of the core during it’s time on the main sequence.
O-type stars are thought to lose half of their mass during their (relatively speaking) short lifetime via stellar wind processes. These winds an be thousands of km/second and create huge bubbles.
Some stars may lost so much mass via winds that they become too small to undergo a supernova.
Other medium sized star types lose a lot as well, although stars in the size range of the sun mostly lose protons and electrons, and mass loss due to stellar winds is not thought to affect their evolution much.
Large stars are a minority, but can be hugely massive, and so are very important for seeding the interstellar medium with metals (metals are what astrophysicists call anything other than hydrogen and helium).
Also, although a minority of stellar populations at a given time, they do not last long, and so they numbers of them over time are much larger than the number which are around at any particular moment. They come and go in a hurry.
The way it is understood at this point in time, high mass stars produce so much energy in their cores that they cannot shed it by radiation or conduction to the outer portions of the star, and instead undergo convection. In the largest stars, the radiative zone is a narrow shell and the convective zone is most of the star.
In fact, all stars have a convective zone.
For Sun -sized stars, this zone is entirely within the core, or is thought to be so.
Starting just above solar mass, the convective zone extends beyond the core, and gets larger and larger, and the radiative zone gets progressively further and further from the core, in direct proportion to the initial mass of the star.
So large stars are producing immense amounts of heavier elements, and are shedding these pretty much from the get-go.

M Courtney

That the Cardinal gets the science wrong is unfortunate but understandable. He isn’t a scientist and doesn’t know that the magnitude of climate sensitivity is the question not whether the climate is sensitive at all.
But it’s the failed theology that is most alarming.
When he says “a small, negligible minority” he is not recognising that each and every person is known and loved by Christ.
He’s not on my side and coincidentally he isn’t on Christ’s side either.

Sceptical Sam

And he’s not on the side of little choir boys either.

George Tetley

+100%

joel

This must be getting embarrassing for the Greens. As a lapsed Catholic, I am beyond embarrassment by the Pope these days, just disappointed.

Roger Knights

“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

But that’s not what we’re denying. So he’s setting up a strawman.

Wally

And who was it that persecuted those who first advocated a round earth?

Count to 10

Did that actually happen? The knowledge that the earth is round predates Christianity.

Gloateus

Count,
Yes. Ancient pagan Greek and Roman philosophers knew that Earth is spherical, and some even recognized that it goes around the sun, although the standard model was geocentric.
However, Early Church Fathers, basing their “science” on the Bible, insisted that Earth is not only immobile, at rest at the center of creation, but flat, as in both Testaments it clearly is. However, after around AD 400, Augustine argued that it would be better for the propagation of the faith to interpret the Bible figuratively rather than literally, since so many educated pagans who might be attracted by monotheism (or tritheism) were turned off by the anti-scientific beliefs of biblical literalist Christians.

Rick C PE

A dinner plate is also round (and quite flat), but the earth is actually an oblate spheroid. One that appears to be in little danger from human generated CO2.

Bill

Thanks R.Nights, you’re perfectly right, it shows just how basic a grasp this damned old fool has about the “debate”, I would add that the Earth is spherical, a round Earth would be a flat Earth…some people will believe any crap because that’s what they have for brains.
But of course the Vatican knows exactly what it is doing, dwindling numbers of young believers are alarming them so where best to find a “True Believer?” So the Vatican is making a gigantic leap of faith and hoping the Christians all follow….DONT!
Cheers guys, keep on kicking, you are having an effect, and the loonyness of their opinions are beginning to be realized in our power bills and many other disturbing places. The latest one is the charming; ‘old people should be put to death to prevent the waste of soon to be scarce resources in this coming deindustrialized, de-irrigated and enlightened new age….Wow!
Soylent Green anyone?

It is the truth and reality that will eventually prevail…..But it seems that there must large amounts of human misery left in the wake of the simple-minded, shallow but attractive fantasies before the truth does prevail.

gbaikie

Yup, no candles or other kind of light for the catholic.
Live in darkness.

The last remaining segment of the autocratic Roman Empire is the Roman Catholic Church.

petermue

Typo?
It is called Roman Catholic Mafia.

Tom Halla

I was raised Catholic, and still follow the news of the internal politics of the church. It does seem that followers of liberation theology are now influential in the Vatican, after being denounced by Pope John Paul II.
Followers of liberation theology tend to be much more devout leftists than Christians.

hanelyp

I’ll say it: Dope Francis is an antichrist, more attached to leftist nonsense than sound Christian theology.

John

Basically the same I was also raised Catholic, have had my lapses but in the end I believe in god. The current pope from South America.. ugh, Bishops, and Cardina,l added since and some appeared before too are bent on the liberation theology which is also leftist belief but adds the collectivism belief. Basically as OB and others tried to weave into our thoughts.. in order for me to be saved I we all have to be saved. My understanding is for me to be saved “I” have to accept and believe in god. What others do or believe is not for me to judge. We have many issue with the current leader in the church. Their constant judgmental views is one that really bothers me.. comments like these all come from this same “would not only be a disaster but completely unscientific,” and this one “Saying that we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the earth is not round,” Archbishop Sorondo stated. “It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money.” I guess jumping on the global warming train has nothing at all to do about money either?

If I were to guess I would hazard that the church has invested heavily in green energy, though Bill’s hypothesis above re appealing to the youth also has legs. Either way this statement is as political and manipulative as any of the other dark episodes in church history.

Gloateus

Sorondo is Argentinian, like the Marxist pope. His PhD is in theology, not a scientific discipline, yet he feel competent to rule on a scientific controversy about which he knows nothing.
Clearly, catastrophic man-made “global warming” is a theological belief, not a scientific fact.

nn

Ah, the flat Earth consensus peculiar to political and social tribes.
Global warming, perhaps. However, there are no progressive processes other than human narcissism. He maybe thinking of chaos, as in the evolution of human life from conception.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a prophecy that denies the nature of reality and indulges in departures from the scientific domain. It’s only notable in a rather routine conflation of logical domains that characterizes the post-enlightenment Western world.

Rick C PE

…and yet it has not warmed…
(apologies to Galileo)

Ah yes. The much touted ‘Global Surface Air Temperature’ has been 59 degrees F for as long as NOAA and the GHCN have computed it, even if it is a fictitious parameter. It is the ANOMALIES reported by the media that are nothing but man-made adjustments to the data. The Archbishop has no clothes.

Leo Smith

This is the cartoon the vigorous defenders of Galileo’s viewpoint always reminds me of.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/centrifugal_force.png
In fact if you view what was actually said at the time, instead of what popular myth has recorded, the catholic church were in fact philosophically correct.
The earth does not go round the sun any more than the sun goes round the earth.
You can argue either depending on where you put your co-ordinate frame, and Newton finally made that point when he introduced the issue of ‘steady motion’ being indistinguishable from ‘ at rest’ as far as the maths was concerned. Only relative movement was measurable. Absolute motion was indecidable – a notion further developed by Einstein.
But back then the Church had some of the finest minds in it. Its been downhill all the way since, until today you will find more incisive philosophy on the Muppet show than in the Vatican.

Leo Smith

Hmm. if the earth was round and at rest why then could we not jump off it?
Ditto if it were flat .
Seems to me Galileo missed a trick since gravity is a necessary feature of BOTH models to explain why we remain earthbound.
Or else we are actually inside a rotating sphere…and that’s what keeps us stuck. Gosh. we might have got to Einstien 400 years earlier.
But of course there is another twist to all of this – the spiritual twist. The material would is really all on Gods mind, so the only real set of co-ordinates puts God at the centre of creation and, since man is made in God’s imagination, that means that man has to be pretty close to the centre of the universe, expressed in a religious co-ordinate set.

I Came I Saw I Left

“…the catholic church were in fact philosophically correct. The earth does not go round the sun any more than the sun goes round the earth.”
Philosophically correct, not actually correct. The idea that it describes reality is IMO the ultimate in self-indulgent delusion. It’s like the mind considering itself the center of reality by abstracting the body and world that sustains its existence.

Hugs

Steady motion is distinguishable from rest. The cosmic background radiation defines a rest and nothing goes extraordinarily fast related to it. Very fast, yes, but not arbitrarily fast in practice. Vacuum is also not just a rigid background, but that is above my paygrade to explain to you.
Ctm, did you mean to start a war between reasonabilists and catholics?

South River Independent

The Church saved science during the so-called Dark Ages. Do some research on Pierre Duhem.

Menicholas

Yes, once it was known the Earth was a sphere, and nothing was falling off of the other side of the sphere, gravity could have been inferred by anyone thinking about it very much.
And never mind jumping off of the earth, why did we not just float away?
The fact of falling was so ever present that no one questioned it.

Menicholas

“The idea that it describes reality is IMO the ultimate in self-indulgent delusion.”
All of you know that, at the instant I die, you are going *poof* into the oblivion from whence you came, right?
Y’all best not let anything happen to me…you are just a figment of my imagination.
This is a logical end point of any self centric view of existence.

Gloateus

Charles,
GG did indeed have an answer to that question, however wrong, as also was Kepler’s.
But that question had nothing to do with his being found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition. Here’s a good summary of the proceedings:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
GG was guilty on paper because he taught doctrine inimical to the Church’s position on cosmology, which was based upon the Bible and Ptolemy. But what he was really guilty of was making the pope look foolish.
He had been ordered decades previously not to teach Copernicanism. Then it seemed that, after his friend became pope, he could do so again. But in his Dialogues, the character Simplicio mouths the pope’s geocentric views, while Sagredo voices GG’s heliocentrism, which it’s clear the scientist has concluded reflect physical reality (albeit with circular orbits, which were required if his answer to the question about flying off the rotating earth was to work).

Gloateus

Leo Smith July 22, 2017 at 11:14 pm
There is no way in which the Church was philosophically correct. Its position was clear, namely that Earth lies at rest at the center of the Universe, with the Moon, Sun and planets circling it.
GG was correct that Earth is a planet orbiting the Sun, while rotating on its axis, but wrong that the orbit is circular rather than elliptical, as discovered for Mars by Kepler, using Tycho’s data. He also wasn’t aware that the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system actually orbits the Sun’s barycenter.
But he was a lot more correct than the Church, which was simply as wrong as wrong can be, albeit in good company with Aristotle and Ptolemy.

Gloateus

South River Independent July 23, 2017 at 10:42 am
You might know that Copernicus had read the rotational speculation of Nicole Oresme, but I know of no evidence that he did. Copernicus did however read Greek, so could read ancient pagan natural philosophy in the original. Manuscripts became available in the West after the Turks captured Byzantium, along with Greek teachers.
Duhem generally can’t show any important, or even any, influence on the scientific revolution of 1543, et seq, of Medieval European science.

Gloateus

charles the moderator July 23, 2017 at 12:50 pm
Castelli looked scarily like Michael Mann.
Heliocentrism is clearly ruled out by the Bible, as is a mobile earth. Among the many biblical passages upon which the Church relied in its opposition to heliocentrism on religious grounds include 1) Psalm 93:1, 2) 96:10, 3) 104:5, 4) 1 Chronicles 16:30, 5) Ecclesiastes 1:5, and, perhaps most famously, 6) Joshua 10:13.
I’m sure you are busy, but you can save yourself the trouble to research GG’s trial. It has been translated into English and is available on line, so you can see for yourself of what he was convicted and why.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html
The Inquisition found Galileo “vehemently suspect of heresy” for having held the opinions 1) that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the “universe”, 2) that the Earth is not at its center and moves, and 3) that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” these opinions.
His lifetime prison sentence was commuted to house arrest. His “Dialogue”, so offensive to doctrine and personally to the pope, was banned; and publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Gloateus

Charles,
GG’s 1615 letter to Castelli did come up in 1632-33, but was not dispositive in the Inquisition’s verdict finding him guilty of heresy.
Testimony and the Inquisition’s deliberations are all available in English translation, at the link I provided above.
Basically, GG, old and sick, had no option but to recant. He was threatened with torture and life in prison if he survived. The reduced sentence of house arrest was in the way of a plea bargain.

South River Independent

Gluteus – Once again you miss my point. The Church was not anti-science. Read some Stanley Jaki about Duhem.

Gloateus

SRI,
You miss the whole point. I’m sure I’ve read a lot more history of science than you have, since I write and teach about it. You have completely misinterpreted Medieval science. Oresme, for instance, made good arguments for a moving earth, but then rejected them with less reason, because an immobile earth was doctrine.
Duhem was impressed by some characters from the Middle Ages, but failed utterly in connecting their idle speculations with later real science. The fact remains that science was stagnant for 1400 years because of the dead weight of ancient authority. Only in the Early Modern period were scientists finally able to free themselves from the weight dragging them down, often at risk of their lives.
The Church was most certainly anti-science. It based its “science” on ancient authority, ie pagan authors and the Bible, rather than upon the scientific method. Had the Church been pro-science, it would have welcomed he contributions of Copernicus and Galileo, but it didn’t because it was fundamentally anti-scientific.
The Church only had an interest in “science” if it furthered its theological dogma.
Modern science started in AD 1543 by rejecting the teaching of the Church. And it has continued, until recently with “climate change”, by rejecting authority in favor of the scientific method.

Gloateus

Charles,
Perhaps you have these conversations in mind:
https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/653479
The point is that GG was found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition for teaching the “doctrines” of heliocentrism and a mobile earth, contrary to Church dogma, which was that earth lies at rest at the center of the “universe”, with the spheres carrying the moon, sun, planets and fixed stars around it.
GG got off easy. The Church in 1600 burned Bruno alive at the stake for teaching that there is an infinity of worlds, among other terrible heresies. He had probably seen normally invisible stars while in England, where a crude version of a telescope already existed.

Gloateus

Charles,
There is no “nuance”. Whatever individuals associated with the Church might have said in private conversation, the unalterable fact is that official Church doctrine was that earth doesn’t move and lies at the center of the universe.
D@nial of that dogma is what condemned GG. There is no way around that stark fact.

Gloateus

Charles,
There is no mystery whatsoever as to how the Church arrived at its doctrine. That individual Churchmen were willing to entertain, at least hypothetically, other ideas, the unalterable fact is that Church doctrine and dogma, no doubt about it or allowed, was that Ptolemy and the Bible ruled.
Chruch doctrine was unequivocably based upon the Bible, as amended by Ptolemy, so as not to permit the biblical flat earth. Above I’ve listed some of the biblical passages upon which the Church based its cosmological doctrine.
What this or that cardinal or bishop thought didn’t matter. What the Inquisition and magister and pope thought did. Which is why GG was condemned.
I’d have thought these facts obvious.
Please read the translated proceedings of the Inquisition. They leave no doubt as to the Church’s doctrine, which, as I keep repeating, was that Earth lies immobile, at rest, at the center of the universe. No ifs, ands or buts. Disagree at your extreme peril.

Gloateus

Pretty simple, really.
If you go against Church cosmological dogma in public, you’ll be burned alive, if no one likes you, like Bruno, or imprisoned for life, if, like GG, you still have friends in high places, however much you might have ticked them off. He got off easy since his life in prison was spent under house arrest rather than in the Inquisition’s dungeons.
Being free to engage in honest scientific inquiry without dread consequences if you cross the line, not so much. As in, not at all.
Not without reason did Copernicus wait 36 years before publishing his dangerous science. He knew the likely fate awaiting him. He would have taken his work to his grave but for the urgings of a Protestant student to publish, which he did, only shortly before he died.

Gloateus

charles the moderator July 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm
Yes, I am 100 percent certain that Church doctrine was exactly as I stated it, as affirmed by the Inquisition, the hierarchy and the pope himself.
Again, whatever latitude there might have been in discussion among churchmen and laymen as to hypotheticals had zero, as in nada, to do with GG’s condemnation. If you imagine that there were members of the Inquisition who considered letting him off because of “nuances”, please by all means trot them out. You won’t because you can’t.
Again, for the umpteenth time. Official Church doctrine, which alone could be taught as truth, was the same as that espoused by the pope of whom GG so presumptuously made fun. He thought that since he got away with thumbing his nose at the Church in 1616, he could do so again, but was proved sorely mistaken.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to get that, while educated clerics and laity could discuss hypotheses, actually challenging Church cosmological doctrine as physically false was beyond the pale and dangerous, as in you could lose life and liberty.

South River Independent

Gloateus, yes we appear to be missing eah other’s point. We are discussing two different things.

David Chappell

And the turtle moves
(With apologies to T Pratchett) Incidentally in the book Small Gods there is an excellent passage that describes why a religion suceeds in fooling people despite all reason. It’s hard to argue against an icon.

Charles

Seems to me the Vatican once taught that the sun went around the earth – that was settled science too.

Louis Hooffstetter

“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo. “Climate change is a fact.”
No shit Sherlock. But thank you anyway, Captain Obvious.
The archbishop has been a consistent and zealous promoter of manmade climate change as a “non-negotiable” Church issue.
And that’s one of many reasons why I am no longer a practicing Catholic.

John V. Wright

[no bigotry please, of any kind please~ctm]

John Kelly

As a Catholic I can comment on this. It is very disappointing that the Pope released this encyclical. The Church has only one faith is can adhere to and not two.

Catcracking

Sad, This POPE is taking the church back to the old days of intolerance for others for their beliefs.That did not work well before for them then and unlikely to work this time either. Unfortunately we are seeing a lot of the same intolerance from the progressive left on virtually every subject. Think how bad they would treat us if Hillary won.

Steve Case

This POPE is taking the church back to the old days of intolerance for others for their beliefs.That did not work well before for them then and unlikely to work this time either.

BINGO!

afonzarelli

Yes, even having the audacity to invoke the term “flat earther”…

Robert of Ottawa

Interesting yoi should say that because I understod that this Pope hails from the Liberation Theology wing of his organization.

Sheri

It is not the function of religion to be “tolerant”. It is the function of religion to teach about God (or Gods or whatever). Morality is the basis for religion. Not situational morality, either. If one wants tolerance, join a social club. Going to church to find “tolerance” is like going to a library to buy milk.

Andrew_W

Wow, I thought most of the people here had at least progressed to accepting AGW and that the argument was over how much and how threatening its effects, but nope, evidently the dark ages continue at WUWT.

John F. Hultquist

Andrew,
State your views and specific positions on catastrophic global warming – climate change. Something as vague as “dark ages” is not something worth discussing.
What does “accepting AGW” mean?
“most of the people here” — What does that mean? Do you know how many people are here? No?
But you do know their mental states. Beautiful. Uff da!

JFH- this is just rolling. Hi Griff!

TROLLING – sorry

“Andrew_W July 22, 2017 at 11:47 pm
afonzarelli, in that case there will be little in science that you accept as most of science is about accepting the weight of evidence, little in science is based on “proof”.”
Oh Griff, don’t you ever weary of posting all this gibberish?

Griff

Hi Cube
I’m just rollin’ along…

catweazle666

Have you apologised to DR. Crockford for lying about her professional qualifications yet Skanky?
Don’t you think it’s time you did?

Michael Jankowski

You’re being quite dishonest, Andrew_W. I saw one or arguably two posts above yours that fit your “dark ages” angle at best.

Menicholas

Andrew, I thought most progressives had progressed to the point of accepting that science is a method, not a belief.
Judging by your example of one and projecting that onto everyone who thinks like you do, evidently you have not the first idea of what the word science even means.

Andrew_W

Menicholas, you evidently assume that to accept the weight of evidence that warming has occurred and that the human caused increase in GH gases in responsible requires one being a “progressive”, perhaps you’re right if the opposite of progressive is “conservative”, if however you define “progressive” as leftist you are wrong about my politics, which is most accurately defined as Classical Liberal.
Your assertion that I don’t know what science is is simply nonsense based on your evident belief that science can be defined by politics.

afonzarelli

Andrew, i’d be happy to progress to that point, but i need proof. (i don’t “accept” things without proof)…

rogerthesurf

Fonzi,
I have published the following paragraphs on WUWT several times already however it appears you have not seen them yet
Here is your proof that the AGW theory, ( a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation :Merriam – Webster), does not meet scientific standards to advance from being anything more than a hypothesis – ( a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences :Merriam – Webster).
If you are a scientist you will be aware of Karl Poppers writings on hypotheses.
However his writings are perfectly explainable to a lay person as well.
Here is Richard Feynman doing and explaining that to a freshman physics class probably at Princeton. (I have since learnt that the University was Cornell)

Here is some empirical evidence of actual climate temperatures and the results of modeling hypotheses.comment image
(Courtesy of http://www.drroyspencer.com/ website of June 4th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Former NASA Scientist. Sources of models and observations converted to linear trend for comparison annotated on graph)
It is not scientifically possible to prove a hypothesis correct, for example Einstein’s Hypothesis of General Relativity that explained Newton’s hypothesis’ did not quite explain everything, and although Newton’s hypothesis stood for hundreds of years and were extremely useful and practical it was empirical evidence that showed Newton was not entirely correct.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury)
However it is possible to prove, as Einstein did, that a better hypothesis should be substituted, but in the case of AGW, the hypothesis should be thrown out completely because there is no empirical evidence that supports any part of it.
Climate “scientists” understand Karl Popper as well. This is why they will always stay away from proper debate about AGW.
However, if there is no empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis we had better heed Richard Feynmans words in the above video.
We have wasted trillions on AGW so far, the UN being a prominent culprit and if there is overwhelming doubt that the science is flawed, (as I show above), the danger to the world’s people is economic not atmospheric.
This is the actual real science and we better all be getting used to it.
Including El Papa
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Andrew_W

afonzarelli, in that case there will be little in science that you accept as most of science is about accepting the weight of evidence, little in science is based on “proof”.

Robert of Ottawa

as most of science is about accepting the weight of evidence, little in science is based on “proof”
Well, Andrew, where is the “proof” of the handwaving of positive feedbacks. Sounds like epicycles to me; that is, the theory has big holes and more angels are added to explain deficiencies in the theory.
The truth is we don’t have adequate understanding of the “global” climate.

I Came I Saw I Left

Andrew, you clearly don’t accept the evidence and prefer climate model outputs, which are not evidence.

Andrew_W

I Came I Saw I Left
I’ve not used any reference to climate models, I’ve only referred to observational data. Are you sober?

I Came I Saw I Left

Andrew, there are no observational data concerning CAGW. And AGW is irrelevant apart from the C..So the assertion that AGW is a problem (ie, CAGW) doesn’t come from observational data, but from model outputs. So by equivocating CAGW with AGW, by default, you are attributing more value to climate model outputs than to observational data.

afonzarelli

Andrew, nonsense… There are hard sciences like rocket science and then there are soft sciences like climate change. If your rocket gets off the pad, then that constitutes proof. In the case of climate science, we don’t even have your “weight of evidence” (let alone proof). It has been warming for three hundred years and there is no reason why recent warming couldn’t be a natural extension of that trend. Just maybe recent warming is caused by agw or maybe just half by agw or maybe none at all. We just don’t really know, nor do we have anyway of knowing. Even if temps were indeed keeping up with the climate models, we still wouldn’t really know. The warming in that case COULD still be from something else. (perhaps like the return of Christ — wormwood approaches, earthquakes abound, geothermal activity increases, who knows?) Bottom line is that there are plenty of false paradigms out there and the soft science of climate change could be just another one of those…

Andrew_W

afonzarelli, “rocket science” is a cute phrase, but it’s fiction, rocketry is engineering.

Roger Knights

Andrew_W: It was only commenters Rick C PE and karabar who denied AGW–that the earth has warmed in part because of man. The rest of us accept that it has warmed and argue over “how much and how threatening its effects.” That was implicit in my comment near the top of the thread, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/22/vatican-archbishop-all-should-accept-that-global-warming-is-a-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-2559162

Andrew_W

Roger Knight, the Archbishop claims that “the earth is warmed by human activity”, you say that you and most commenters here agree that it probably has done so – and yet almost all commenters are taking the Archbishop to task and rubbishing his claim, so I find your assertion that it is only commenters Rick C PE and karabar who deny AGW is happening as not tenable.

Sceptical Sam

Andrew,
the CAGW claim is that the 0.074 C ° estimate of temperature rise over the 1905-2005 period is predominantly caused by man-made CO2 emissions. Predominantly – as in the majority of it.
That’s where the hypothesis falls down. The evidence of that is provided by the very models the proponents of CAGW developed.
The models’ projections and the real world observations (notwithstanding the persistent upwards adjustments to the data) fail to agree.
That fact alone is sufficient to require the rejection of the hypothesis.
I cannot understand how somebody who asserts they understand how the scientific method works can persist in denying the failure of the CAGW hypothesis, on the evidence available.
Can you explain it?

Andrew_W

Skeptical Sam, I’m afraid you’re the victim of denialist propaganda, even the skeptics preferred UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly graph shows a rate of increase in global temperatures that’s around 20 times the 0.074 C / century you claim.

Sceptical Sam

@ Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 4:00 am
Comrade, you are a treat.
Tell it to the IPCC, which is where the figure came from.
20 times 0.074 C ° = what?
You do the arithmetic. What do you get?
But you knew that didn’t you. You just choose to ignore it.
And that’s in Centigrade. Comrade you’re dreaming.
What you’ve just done to yourself is demonstrate just how out of touch you and your warmist comrades are.

Sceptical Sam

And, Andrew, if you want to see what UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature looks like over the same period, then have a peak at this comrade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1905/to:2005/plot/uah6/from:1905/to:2005/trend
And your conclusion is?

Sceptical Sam

Oh, do come on Andrew.
Hurry up with your response.
I’ve a little surprise waiting for you.

Andrew_W

Skeptical Sam, the lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites is +1.28 °C / century, sorry if that doesn’t fit with your beliefs.

Andrew_W

Skeptical Sam, hopefully you’re starting to catch up, I don’t know where you got your 0.074 C / century from, but it certainly was not from the IPCC.

Sceptical Sam

Oh good. You’re back.
You really don’t know your stuff, do you Andrew.
If you knew your stuff you’d know that I’d shifted the decimal point on you. And you didn’t pick it up.
As I suspected.
Your critical thinking abilities are very poor to non existent. You just believe what you’re told. You’re a “yes man”.
That’s why you can’t see the falsity in the CAGW hypothesis. You can’t think for yourself.
You see the IPCC, in fact, asserts the warming over the 100 years to 2005 was 0.74 C ° ± 0.18 C °.
“The updated 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C is larger than the 100-year warming trend at the time of the TAR (1901–2000) of 0.6°C ± 0.2°C due to additional warm years.”
Read about it in AR4, here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html
So, now that I’ve helped you with all that, perhaps you can explain to us all why the projections from the warmists’ models are not supported by the real world observations? See the models and the observations here:comment image
Courtesy of roger the surf.

@ Sceptical Sam
I guess: “0.074 C °” should have been: ” 0.74 °C “?

Sceptical Sam

Well spotted Science or Fiction.
As I pointed out to comrade Andrew above.
What a pity he isn’t as perspicacious. Maybe he’ll eventually see the light.

Andrew_W

Skeptical Sam, you get your figure wrong by an order of magnitude and pretend that it makes you clever, you’re a joke. As I said, your figure of 0.074 C / century certainly did not come from the IPCC, and it didn’t.
I have not taken the position that any given set cherry picked climate models is an accurate projection, I only argue that temperatures are rising and that the rate of surface temperature increase is currently around 1.6 – 1.8 C / century, as you point out with your link, the rate of increase is higher in recent decades compared to that over the average of the whole 20th century:
“The updated 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C ± 0.18°C is larger than the 100-year warming trend at the time of the TAR (1901–2000) of 0.6°C ± 0.2°C due to additional warm years. The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C. The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.”

Sceptical Sam

Look comrade! More red squirrels.
What I did was demonstrate that you don’t know your stuff.
You’re avoiding the real issue. The CAGW hypothesis. You know the one. The one that the comrades support. The one that says the IPCC’s estimated global warming is predominantly caused by man-made CO2 emissions.
Most people I work with accept that the world may have warmed marginally over the last 100 years. The IPCC says 0.74 C ° in the 100 year period up to 2005. I can live with that. But that’s not the issue.
The issue is what drives that warming.
The proponents of the CAGW hypothesis purport to show, via their models, what global temperature will do into the future. They need some 73 models to do this. None of the projections of any of these models has managed to align with the actual temperature rise. Why? That’s the question you need to address.
While ever it remains unaddressed, the hypothesis is falsified.
Accordingly, you need to develop a new hypothesis rather than look for more red squirrels.

Roger Knights

Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 1:37 am
Roger Knight, the Archbishop claims that “the earth is warmed by human activity”, you say that you and most commenters here agree that it probably has done so – and yet almost all commenters are taking the Archbishop to task and rubbishing his claim, so I find your assertion that it is only commenters Rick C PE and karabar who deny AGW is happening as not tenable.

Commenters here are rubbishing the archbishop’s insinuation that to deny CAGW (which we all do here) is to deny AGW (which maybe 10% here do). This discreditable conflation is a standard warmist tactic, and very objectionable–hence our condemnation..

Andrew_W

Sceptical Sam, the combination of your ignorance and self confidence is fascinating,
“The CAGW hypothesis. You know the one. The one that the comrades support. The one that says the IPCC’s estimated global warming is predominantly caused by man-made CO2 emissions.”
It’s AGW that’s caused by Human activity, the “A” is for “anthropogenic”, accepting AGW does not necessarily mean you accept CAGW. My own position is that AGW will lead to some good, some bad but mostly a rate-of-change that will be comfortably manageable for most people – but there’s still a lot of people who will be flooded out that would not otherwise have been, it’ll be a warmer and wetter world.
The issue of what’s happening in the Arctic is worrying, the average summer minimum ice extent has been steadily dropping:
In the ’80’s it was 7.3 million km^2
In the ’90’s it was 6.6
In the ’00’s it was 5.5
In the last decade it’s around 4.0
So not only is the minimum area dropping but the rate of decline is increasing, it’s likely that we will see at least one year in the 2020’s with a zero sea ice minimum and many years with zero sea ice after that.
“The proponents of the CAGW hypothesis purport to show, via their models, what global temperature will do into the future. They need some 73 models to do this.”
They’ve done far more than 73 runs with climate models, it’s in the thousands, the models are run forward and backwards to test their ability to hindcast, despite what your words imply the models are continually developed to gain more accuracy, not to create a model that predicts the highest rate of change.
“While ever it remains unaddressed, the hypothesis is falsified.”
Here you demonstrate an extraordinary lack of understanding of science, neither AGW or CAGW are falsified, whether the models are right or wrong does not make AGW theory or CAGW “falsified”, the physics will happen independently of what the models project, over the last 40 decades the rate of surface warming has been around 1.6 – 1.8 C / century, which as you note, is significantly higher than the century from 1905, there are plenty of unknowns, but unknowns are a poor foundation for the certainty expressed by both those that believe CAGW wrong and those that believe it certain, the alarmists and denialists are both ideologically motivated, opposite sides of the same coin.

Tom Halla

Many of the arguments on arctic ice demonstrating global warming rely on what is a fallacy of using only recent satellite data, and ignoring reports from arctic shipping and explorers earlier. The argument of the skeptics is mostly that climate is cyclical for other causes than CO2 levels, and that fitting that theme, arctic ice was lower in the 1930’s and early 1940’s than the late 1960’s when satellite imagery started to become available. BTW, the 1930’s were probably warmer in at least the Northern Hemisphere than currently.

Andrew_W

Roger Knights: “Commenters here are rubbishing the archbishop’s insinuation that to deny CAGW (which we all do here)”
You don’t have enough information to make a valid science based conclusion on the legitimacy of CAGW, on that basis both those that are certain of CAGW and those that are certain CAGW is wrong have beliefs based in ideology not science.

I Came I Saw I Left

“You don’t have enough information to make a valid science based conclusion on the legitimacy of CAGW”
Of course we do because there is no evidence. As I said before, model outputs are not evidence, and that’s all that CAGW proponents have. Science is based on testable, observable evidence. Otherwise it’s not science.

Andrew_W

I Came I Saw I Left: “Of course we do because there is no evidence.”
Not too bright are you? There are many analogies I could pick, but the one that pops to mind is alien life, there is zero evidence for alien life in the universe, therefore, by your logic, it cannot exist. There is evidence that we are seeing changing climate, and where there is change, unpredictable things, some of them potentially bad, can happen.

I Came I Saw I Left

“Not too bright are you? There are many analogies I could pick, but the one that pops to mind is alien life, there is zero evidence for alien life in the universe, therefore, by your logic, it cannot exist. There is evidence that we are seeing changing climate, and where there is change, unpredictable things, some of them potentially bad, can happen.”
I’ve never said that CAGW can’t exist. It might (just like space aliens might), but there is no evidence that it does. Therefore to say that it exists is not based on science, but belief. Again, you’re conflating AGW with CAGW. A favored tactic of CAGW advocacy.

Andrew_W

Perhaps you should reread our comments, you claimed that you could legitimately conclude that CAGW was not happening, I’ve been arguing that both positions of certainty on CAGW are not based on science but on ideology.

I Came I Saw I Left

Perhaps you should reread our comments, you claimed that you could legitimately conclude that CAGW was not happening, I’ve been arguing that both positions of certainty on CAGW are not based on science but on ideology.

It’s a matter of priorities. Since there is no evidence that space aliens exist, it’s a waste of time and resources to think and act like they do. Same with CAGW. For all practical purposes CAGW doesn’t exist until there is evidence that it does.
Furthermore, skeptics don’t have to ‘prove’ CAGW doesn’t exist because climate scientists haven’t yet ‘proven’ that it does exist.

I Came I Saw I Left

btw, your reasoning employs the proving non-existence logical fallacy.

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t. If you can’t, X exists.

Andrew_W

Please work on your reading comprehension, I said: “I’ve been arguing that both positions of certainty on CAGW are not based on science but on ideology”, how on earth is that “I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t. If you can’t, X exists”?

Roger Knights

Here’s the dialog so far:
Roger Knights July 22, 2017 at 8:14 pm

”“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!” said Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.”
But that’s not what we’re denying. So he’s setting up a strawman.

Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 1:37 am:

Roger Knight, the Archbishop claims that “the earth is warmed by human activity”, you say that you and most commenters here agree that it probably has done so – and yet almost all commenters are taking the Archbishop to task and rubbishing his claim, so I find your assertion that it is only commenters Rick C PE and karabar who deny AGW is happening as not tenable.

Roger Knights July 23, 2017 at 12:22 pm:

Commenters here are rubbishing the archbishop’s insinuation that to deny CAGW (which we all do here) is to deny AGW (which maybe 10% here do). This discreditable conflation is a standard warmist tactic, and very objectionable–hence our condemnation.

Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Roger Knights: “Commenters here are rubbishing the archbishop’s insinuation that to deny CAGW (which we all do here)”
You don’t have enough information to make a valid science based conclusion on the legitimacy of CAGW, on that basis both those that are certain of CAGW and those that are certain CAGW is wrong have beliefs based in ideology not science.

Roger Knights now:
That paragraph is a diversion. I was not arguing for the illegitimacy of of CAGW, which is your strawman. I was arguing that it was illegitimate to conflate denial of CAGW with denial of AGW—which is what the archbishop did—and that it was illegitimate of you to conclude from only two comments that that consensus on this thread denies AGW.

Roger Knights

Oops. make my last words, “that the consensus on this thread …”

I Came I Saw I Left

Please work on your reading comprehension, I said: “I’ve been arguing that both positions of certainty on CAGW are not based on science but on ideology”, how on earth is that “I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t. If you can’t, X exists”?

And your reasoning is wrong because the skeptic position is not based on ideology, but on the lack of evidence that GAGW exists. That’s the scientific approach. So it’s not that skeptics are certain that CAGW doesn’t exist, but that they are certain that observable evidence contradicts climate scientists’ claims that it does exist. Every prediction they’ve made has failed, so it is certain that they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

Slacko

Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 2:41 pm
“There are many analogies I could pick, but the one that pops to mind is alien life, there is zero evidence for alien life in the universe, therefore, by your logic, it cannot exist. There is evidence that we are seeing changing climate, and where there is change, unpredictable things, some of them potentially bad, can happen.”
That’s a rather dishonest analogy Andrew. Has the evidence for alien life been tampered with to provide excuse to spend trillions on useless projects to damage human civilisation? So then how is it analogous to global warming which was contrived as an excuse to de-industrialise the west, collapse the energy grid, and decimate the human population? Historic temperature data have been adjusted to make the past cooler, the MWP and RWP flattened out, the 1930s pulled downward, all to make the present look unusually warm. And that’s just one of their tricks. What you see as evidence of a changing climate is mostly a mirage created by the false preaching of the CAGW party.
But somehow you think both sides are driven by ideology.
Sorry, that cow won’t moo.

Sceptical Sam

Andrew, @Andrew_W July 23, 2017 at 2:05 pm
You’ve defeated your own argument. I probably shouldn’t respond on the basis of “why interrupt a fool when he’s making a serious set of errors?”
Nevertheless, like the scorpion and the frog, it’s in my nature to do so.
1. You say: “…it’ll be a warmer and wetter world.”
The fool Flannery (that great Australian doyen of the warmists’ world, the extinct big giant wombat) assured us that Perth, Western Australia, would be the first “ghost metropolis” of the 21st Century because of the lack of precipitation. Get your story straight. It’s either wetter or drier. It can’t be both.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/flannery-sticks-by-ghost-city/news-story/49cec9bf446f6e3be9e730e29fe52476
2. You say: “The issue of what’s happening in the Arctic is worrying”.
Indeed it is. The ice was supposed to be gone four years ago. It’s still there. Get your story straight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
3. You say: “…the models are continually developed to gain more accuracy,…”.
Right idea. Wrong focus. In fact, what has happened is that the global temperature data sets are continually developed to align more closely with the models’ projections. Down in the past. Up in the recent period. Get your story straight.comment image
from:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
4. You say: “…the physics will happen independently of what the models project, over the last 40 decades the rate of surface warming has been around 1.6 – 1.8 C / century,..”
40 decades = 400 years.
That statement, better than anything else demonstrates, in your own words, that the Null hypothesis applies. CO2 has little to do with it.
You say the models fail because of the physics. I agree with you. Get a new model. Get a new hypothesis.

Leo Smith

If by ‘accepting AGW’ you mean the trivially true proposition that mankind has always affected climate, since he first peed in the oceans of course that’s accepted by everyone.
But what we mean here by AGW is the proposition that, via the medium of carbon dioxide, mankind’s activities have had significant and deleterious and life threatening effect on climate, well no, we don’t believe that.
Not only that, but a considerable number I would say would deny that even if we could eliminate all the other issues affecting climate change, the effect of CO2 would be even be measurable.
Ergo to all practical intents and purposes AGW does not exist, despite the physics, which everyone here understands.
And that is because the feedback is disputed. And may well be so strongly negative that the effect of CO2 is simply to several decimal places utterly irrelevant.
Although I would suspect that the average of opinion here is that CO2 will cause a fraction of a degree warming in the next hundred years plus minus. But that’s only an average of opinion, and is scientifically worthless.
An algal bloom might happen with increasing CO2 that turns the dark oceans light, thereby increasing albedo and plunging us into a new Ice age.
Except it never did in the past, just like massive concentrations of CO2 in the past didn’t lead to a massive temperature rise either.

Count to 10

Every link on the CAGW logic chain is fairly weak.
We don’t know what the CO2 concentration would be in the absence of our emissions.
We don’t know how much warming a given level of CO2 actually causes.
We don’t have an unambiguous (or, at this point, uncorrupted) measure of how much temperatures have increased.
We don’t know how much a given temperature increase will raise sea levels (or if the overall rise will be relevant next to local geological changes in shoreline elevation).
The weakest link may be that we don’t know if the net effects of warming are negative.

Sheri

I think now it’s okay to be what used to be called “unscientific” and relegated to the “bad people” groups that were given clever names and marginalized. It’s no longer required to believe CO2 is relevant to anything. I have noticed that. I do remember the days when those who came here and pushed the meme were called trolls and other such things. Tolerance has arrived at WUWT.

markl

More religion to support religion.

jorgekafkazar

Or to destroy it.

shrnfr

Some Popes can be vaguely useful. This peddler of several thousand years of superstition should get lost at the soonest opportunity.Religion is your affair. Jamming it into my face makes it mine. Get lost.

John F. Hultquist

There is nothing wrong with The Church advocating for the poor.
Insofar as the Paris Accord was about wealth redistribution, it is no wonder such folks are upset.
Regarding “climate science”, an echo chamber is not the place to have a discussion.
They need to get out of the fancy robes, out of the fancy buildings, out of Rome, and out of the cult they are creating.

brent

An Ecologist’s Perspective on Pope Francis’s Encyclical Letter
Guest Contributor: Dan Botkin
Be that as it may, the greatest importance of the pope’s document is that it makes clear once and for all that this issue is fundamentally a religious and an ideological one, not a scientific one. As I make clear in several of my books and many of my articles, the fundamental irony of environmental science is that it is premised on mythology, on the myth of the great balance of nature, which is not scientific and not scientifically correct
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/04/an-ecologists-perspective-on-pope-franciss-encyclical-letter/

Herbert

Archbishop Sorondo is essentially saying that the Pope’s conclusions on climate science as reflected in “Laudato si” are infallible as though he was speaking on ” matters of faith and morals.”
This is an extraordinarily dangerous proposition for the Archbishop and for the Pope if he supports it.
On 26 February 1615, Galileo was called to Cardinal Bellarmine’s residence and at the direction of Pope Paul V instructed to henceforth abandon the doctrine of heliocentrism.
Pope Urban VIII later supported the finding of the Inquisition in 1632 to sentence Galileo to house arrest for defending heliocentrism against geocentrism and he remained there till his death.
Both Popes were on the wrong side of history and science.
Did the doctrine of papal infallibility apply to their actions then and is it now contended that the Pope’s encyclical “Laudato si” attracts papal infallibility?
Archbishop Sorondo’s claim ,” From the scientific point of view, the statement that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: the earth is round!”, is likely to be as memorable as the fatuous pronouncement,” The debate is over; the science is settled”.

afonzarelli

Papal infallability has only been invoked twice in the history of the church, both involving aspects of the life of Mary the mother of Jesus. “Laudato Si” is in no way, shape or form infallible…
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/02/17/when-does-the-pope-speak-infallibly/

Leo Smith

Note that heliocentrism was held to be a doctrine.
What the church objected to, was not the use of heliocentric co-ordinates to solve astronomical equations, but the fact that Galileo made the fundamental error of claiming, (and nearly all scientists since have done the same), that because it worked it was therefore true.
This is a fundamental error built into the way people are taught and the way they understand the world, and its responsible for 99% of all human errors in thinking.
The mediaeval Catholic church were, I believe, quite sophisticated. They ultimately understood the limits of reason and rational thought better than perhaps most people do today, and their concerns were echoed later by Kant and others.
Namely that you cannot arrive at Truth by use of Reason.
All Reason can do – and Popper states that most eloquently – is to discover falsehood.
Prior to the huge explosion in science, this was better understood I suspect than at any time since. The Catholic church itself exists for perhaps one single reason, to use the concept of papal infallibility to draw (at any given time) a set of human co-ordinates, stick God at the centre and say ‘that is the Truth’ – not arrived at by an act of Reason, nor upheld by experimental evidence, but arrived at by consideration of its efficacy in promoting civilisation and upheld by absolute Faith.
And I tip my hat – as more or less an atheist – to a system devised by the Romans for pacification of the Empire. They realised – in a way we seem to have forgotten – that an Empire run with contradictory moral codes will always be in conflict. Therefore Pax Romana was ultimately accompanied by The Roman Catholic Church, in order to set the standards for moral behaviour – not because they were right, but because they worked.
That is, if you regards the church as an instrument of political authority, by setting standards of behaviour and inculcating a set of codes of practice that defined Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Truth and Lies, it made a far greater civilisation possible than if such things were merely tribal conventions.
And that is why Galileo was a danger. He was attempting to use faux logic – the assumption that because it works, its true – to disrupt a structure which the church regarded (probably correctly) as absolutely essential for civilisation. Namely the authority of the Church in matters of Truth.
And I am afraid that faux logic has been built into the lower echelons of science ever since. Despite Newton despite being taught the maths in school people still ‘believe the earth goes round the sun is a FACT’.
It isn’t. It’s a convenient model to use.
Its trivially true to say that human activity affects climate. The first caveman who built a bonfire and the first herder who felled a tree affected climate. In fact the climate was engineered by plants by and large. Animal life is merely part of the Plant kingdoms waste recycling program, and humans are its greatest recycler, recycling aeons old carbon back into the atmosphere to promote more plant life.
So the Pope is not wrong to say this. Just very very stupid, because he should know that actually what is at stake is by how much it affects climate. And although reason and science will never tell us the truth, reason and science can definitely tell us by how much it is NOT affected.
I think we have forgotten what people with education understood much better in times past. Religion was for the plebs to believe in, but wise men with education to pay lip service to, in the sure and certain knowledge that there was no sure and certain knowledge, but the plebs needed some kind of guidelines. Being prone to the disease of Truth, and Belief.
If you like, the function of religion is to assume a certainty where none exists. By an Act of Faith.
The problem with science is, that unless you stand back and really take a long objective look at it, it is in fact no better in terms of Truth.
It also assumes certainty where none exists. And as a set of mystical and magical practices to befuddle the plebs, its vastly more impressive than waving incense and muttering Latin incantations.
Human knowledge in the end consist of simply a set of models – co-ordinate sets if you like – whose truth content is demonstrably zero. As one can see from consideration of e.g. The Matrix, the subjective experience of being in someone else’s constructed virtual reality is indistinguishable from the experience we have anyway. We cannot in fact discriminate between the two. Which was Occam’s point – not that ‘simple is true’, but ‘in the absence of truth, pick simple’
In the absence of any absolute coordinate set for truth, what we do is pick sets that work, and science is a large collection of interlocking models that work quite well. So well, when tested against experience, in terms of predicting it, that many people call the models ‘true’.
Well, idiocy abounds.
(Christian) Religion is another interlocking set of models that produce no (testable*) predictions whatsoever. That is not their function. Their function is to allow human beings to work together and co-operate. By laying down societal norms of behaviour.
My proposition is that mediaeval philosophers understood all this, before we all became ‘blinded with science’. The church understood its political role, was one of providing an end to argument about what was and what was not and by issuing edicts defining what was true.
The mystical underpinnings of religion are quite sound. In fact all science has done is preformed a transform on what were once understood as ‘aspects of God’s will’ – minor deities, or angels and demons – into ‘natural forces’ . They have been smartened up mathematically and had any intelligent purpose removed (hence the angst over intelligent design) but remain more or less just as mysterious as they always were.
We are no nearer to answering ‘Why this world? Why any world? ‘ as we always were.
*Actually religion has a few testable predictions. One was vividly brought home to me by a leaflet shoved in my hand decades ago, in which the Pop Singer, Cliff Richard, announced how his life had been transformed the moment he put Jesus at the centre of his life , instead of himself.
Well, exactly.
I can comfortably predict that if I go around believing and telling people that there are demons following me telling me what to do, I will find myself in a place of kindly faced angels, and be sedated into a blissful understanding of the heavenly forces that support mankind…
Just because it works, doesn’t mean its true.

Urederra

I love WUWT because, once in a while, you can find comments like Leo´s.

George Tetley

Charles
Wonderful, thank you, L.Smith Esq.
I think Charles that you would have trouble finding a bar/pub big enough

BallBounces

Here are three testable predictions from the Bible. 1. Israel will be restored as a nation in the latter days. 2. The gospel, then in the hands of an insignificant, beleaguered, persecuted minority, will be preached throughout the world. 3. Christ will come again.

I Came I Saw I Left

“Namely that you cannot arrive at Truth by use of Reason. All Reason can do – and Popper states that most eloquently – is to discover falsehood.”
But apart from faith that’s the very nature of discerning truth.

Robert W Turner

There’s a major exceptioncomment image

Clyde Spencer

Leo,
You remarked, “All Reason can do – and Popper states that most eloquently – is to discover falsehood.”
Speaking through Sherlock Holmes, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four
Of course, the flaw in this approach to finding the ‘Truth’ is that perhaps one has overlooked a possibility and therefore one has not tested the universe of hypothetical explanations. Holmes’ result is to positively accept, instead of tentatively accepting, a potentially false or incomplete ‘truth.’ One example might be the duality of light — particle versus wave. That is, one might settle on one interpretation and not anticipate that the alternative exists.
One should not sell short the idea that the pragmatism of utility is a substitute for Truth. After all, Newtonian physics works well for most things that humans do. It is only under special circumstances that one has to invoke relativity. And, those are circumstances that the average person will never encounter. If we cannot know what the Truth is, shouldn’t we be satisfied with what “works?” That is, accept a working hypothesis until such time as it is shown to have limitations in its applicability.

Leo Smith

@clyde Spencer.
Sherlock Holmes was exactly wrong. In fact his escapades are not masterpieces of deduction. There is not an ounce of deduction in them. They are masterpieces of INduction. The construction of a theory to explain phenomena. Not the explication of a truth from a proposition. Like deriving the geometrical theorems from the axioms of Euclidian geometry.
All dear old Sherlock is saying is that he likes Occam’s razor. His explanations are the simplest that fit the world-view he has, that of a later 19th century educated man.
The dog didn’t fail to bark the night because he knew the man in question, it didn’t bark because it was drugged, or had a James Bond style acoustic damper set up to do some effective noise cancelling or because aliens took it away before they visited or because someone had removed its vocal cords, or perhaps the witnesses just lied..
These are all improbable but possible explanations, depending on your world view.
In short once you have eliminated the impossible there are still an infinite number of possible explanations.
And what is impossible anyway? many here would defend the miraculous resurrection of Christ, and the power of religious miracle. Never worked for me, but seems to for some people.

Leo Smith

@clyde spencer part II.
Absolutely I dont sell pragmatism short. In the end its all we have.
I am slowly writing a monograph called ‘Metaphysics for a Post Truth World’ and that is the fundamental and only value judgement I can come up with that is objective. Namely that some ideas work and some do not.
Science has no truth content. None. Nada. Zilch. Square root of Sweet Fanny Adams. Science just makes successful predictions, and that’s ALL it really does.
That is not ‘strong evidence’ that its true, its not even weak evidence that its true. Truth is relative to the metaphysics in use, because we never know truth directly, only a picture of it – a model.
What I mean by that is that e.g. IF one considers the world to be made of ‘atoms’ that zoom around like perfectly elastic billiard balls on a frictionless billiard table THEN we can deduce lots of ‘truths’ relative to that model.
BUT that doesn’t make that model true. All we know about physical reality is what our senses tell us, and not even that, because we already do massive pre-processing of raw experience to turn it into perception of a world of material objects in a space-time-causal framework.
Ergo I conclude the hunt for Truth is futile. The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure. we might have hit on the truth, but even if we have, we can’t prove it is the truth. Not in absolute terms.
So the world as we understand it, of space time matter energy causality – is an illusion, a model we apply to our experience in order to give it structure so we can deal with limited bits of it.
And we can say nothing about the choices we make in that process, except that we are here today because our ancestors chanced on ‘stuff that worked’ – and that, chum, is the biggest argument for conservatism there is. It got us this far, so why change it?
As an atheist I support Christianity completely. I don’t need to believe in God to understand the value of behaving as if a [Christian] God exists, whether in fact he does or not.
In the end, it’s all pragmatism.
I behave as if the world was made of matter and objects and energy in a space time continuum governed by natural laws that reflect the relations between objects in space time…and into which I have injected causality as an a priori principle.
I do this because I know no other way. But I know it’s not ‘true’
It’s just the current best model.

Clyde Spencer

Leo,
Let me purposely and transparently turn your words around. You said, “we might have hit on the truth, but even if we have, we can’t prove it is the truth.” You also say, “The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure.” The two statements are contradictory. You can’t be logically certain of something that you can’t prove. Thus, it would be more correct to say, you BELIEVE that “…we know nothing for sure.”

Gloateus

Leo Smith July 23, 2017 at 12:18 am
That is not what GG did.
He pointed out that the phases of Venus showed the Ptolemaic model to be false. Period.
Both Tycho’s and Copernicus’ models could account for his observations, but GG preferred Copernicus’ because it was simpler, made more sense and resembled the miniature “universe” of Jupiter’s system.
So, while the phases of Venus definitely falsified Ptolemy, Aristotle and the Church, this observation couldn’t definitely confirm Copernicus.

John Robertson

Yup no need to comment.
The Catholic high priests need no help.
Seldom can one parody idiocy of this level.
Though I am lead to wonder, assuming the Catholic religion has faith in Gods Work and Gods Will, what are they going on about?
Or has the required humility been replaced with activist zeal?
After all the Marxist “March of the Institutions”, must have planned to take over these institutions as well as our educators and regulators.
As for the strawman of “Belief in Climate Change”, I want my 3 miles of glacial Ice back…In my exhaulted opinion, North America, especially Liberal Canada could only be improved by recreating the Laurentian Ice Sheet.Tomorrow.
Duh Climate Changes, shame none of these Eco-Loons can provide evidence that man has changed/effected the cycles of climatic change.
30 years of bloviating from the likes of this priest and still nothing…
Be very guilty and send all your money… to me.

petermue

I respect people believing in a God, but if there is one, he surely will be there without those institution called churches.
The only intention of churches over centuries is grabbing money from people,
Common to all is the fear of real science that might destroy their building on Belief.
Almost all evidences of a God, the so called “relics” are a fake, others who were against their goals are suppressed and buried from peoples eyes.
Church has nothing to do with science anyway.
In my eyes, churches are all legalized mafia institutions and should be eliminated.
(see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati )

“I respect people believing in a God, but if there is one, he surely will be there without those institution called churches.”
Amen to that sentiment! One could suggest that God most likely finds such institutions an abomination.

jorgekafkazar

Who does anybody assume that God wants us all to believe in His existence? God apparently goes to a lot of trouble to go undetected, even to the extent of killing anyone who lays eyes on him. [Exodus 33:20] What can he possibly gain from our belief? Nothing.
The Ten Commandments are like cheats to improve our lives. Churches mostly start as a way of helping people to live good lives. They sooner or later become more focused on preserving themselves than preserving devotion and charity. Then they’re done.
Legend has it that there will be no more Popes after about now. Pope Francis and his lackeys, including Archbishop So-Wrongo, may destroy the Church or turn it into a mere political arm of International Socialism. I think the Church may be about done.

Leo Smith

The point of the church is not to get people to believe in a God, but to usurp that Belief for the purposes of generating a social code of conduct, amenable to (Roman) civilisation.

jorgekafkazar

The Church sends out missionaries to spread belief in God, so there’s more to it than a code of conduct.

Leo Smith

Belief in God is how you get people to sign up to that code of conduct to make them fit to live in high population density ‘cities’ – that’s why its called ‘civilising them’.

South River Independent

Actually, Christ said that he was founding a Church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

fxk

Follow the money. The leftist Pope (and other former Popes) were always concerned about the poor – translated to today, a too-large wealth gap among the wealthy countries and the poor; the wealthy citizens and the poor. It only makes sense from a long held religious perspective that the rich take care of the poor. As that seems not to be happening voluntarily, all the Pope has to do is jump on the Paris accord that mandates that wealth re-distribution. I really would not have expected the Pope to take any other stance. It is a chance to affect religious (and one could argue moral) behavior and blame science for it.
As a Catholic, i am deeply disappointed that the Vatican is using such a ploy.

Slacko

“that the rich take care of the poor. …. all the Pope has to do is jump on the Paris accord that mandates that wealth re-distribution.”
Strange that everyone here seems to think that wealth distribution means what it sounds like it means. I prefer to think of wealth redistribution as being defined by the elite who invented it (i.e. in an Orwellian sense.) They transfer the world’s wealth into their own coffers. Those elite created and belong to a large number of interrelated organisations including the Club of Rome, the Sierra Club and the World Council of Churches. The Pope and his Cardinals are fully paid up members of the elite cabal that is pushing the global warming dogma. That’s the real reason the Vatican is on the Paris accord bandwagon, not to help the poor but to help themselves.

Chris Hanley

Bless me Father for I have sinned …

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

If Vaticans believe global warming, then they should go back to ancient lighting system and stop using electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, computers-IT, etc, etc. To save the world!!!
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Clyde Spencer

“From the scientific point of view, the sentence that the earth is warmed by human activity is as true as the sentence: The earth is round!”
The Earth is a particular form of an oblate spheroid, properly called a geoid. A circle is round, an ellipse is not, especially one with high eccentricity.
So, if we take the quote literally, it is really saying that humans contribute warming proportionately to the degree that the Earth deviates from “round.” Alternatively, we could conclude that the statement reflects the degree of expertise (or lack thereof) of The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Mark

Pizzas are round, and I prefer mine warm.
The statements ‘the earth is round’ and ‘humans are warming the earth’ are about as meaningful as each other. You could say they are a short-hand of speech, but…
In the realm of moral authority the philosopher kings in the princely state leave something to be desired.

Menicholas

Well, ever since the Pope declared that building walls and not bridges is not a Christian thing to do, it has been safe to ignore everything that him and his cadre can be completely ignored without risking missing any statements of merit.
http://img.ccrd.clearchannel.com/media/mlib/15172/2016/02/default/2nd_rome_film_festival__aeria_0_1455809553.jpg
Where exactly is the Vatican Bridge?

Menicholas

*note to self* Read it again after rearranging the sentences.

Sceptical Sam

Lol: hehehe!

Griff

There’s a bridge across the Tiber just in front of Castle San Angelo (the papal fortress built from/on Hadrian’s tomb).?
The secret Vatican escape route leads down to the Castle.
Well worth a visit! amazing Roman helical ramp inside…

Menicholas

Trump wants to spend a trillion dollars on roads and bridges.

Michael Jankowski

Yes, the earth is round. Yes, man has an impact on climate.
No, withdrawing from Paris doesn’t change anything. Paris would have no discernible impact even if every signatory followed their half-arsed commitments.
Pope and his mates are either being dishonest or ignorant.

fxk

Tee hee. Nice one, Clyde!

I believe in God as much as the next person but you’ve got to draw the bullshit line somewhere.

Menicholas

The catholic church has as much to do with God as it has to do with science.

afonzarelli

(there’s a fine line between faith and stupidity)…

Leo Smith

Faith is an effective substitute for intelligence, when deciding ‘what to do’.

Richard111

Didn’t the Good Book say “Go forth and multiply.”?
I think that was the start of all the world’s problems.

Leo Smith

And that Marx came along and said ‘go forth and divide’

Sweet Old Bob

Said Archbishop Soros ….there , fixed it for them …

“Saying that we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the earth is not round,” Archbishop Sorondo stated. “It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money.”
He has also repeatedly made the claim that those who don’t subscribe to the manmade climate change theory are in some way subsidized by the oil industry. He did so again in the Vatican Radio interview.”
For a cleric fully maintained and supported by the church, he has no idea about having to live and survive in the real world. In this 21st century, so much – in fact almost all – of the things by which we live and survive are powered by either oil or electricity. This includes all the mod cons, transport etc., that the archbishop uses in his daily life. It’s a further fact of life that money is needed to purchase these commodities. As a cleric, I repeat, he does not need money himself to survive, it’s all provided for him. Not so we mere mortals outside the vatican walls (yes, those big tall stone walls that keep the plebs out.)
Further, his claim that those who don’t share his views on “climate change” are in some way subsidised by the oil industry is obscene. I am certainly not subsidised – by anybody, oil industry or otherwise – yet I vehemently object to the falsehoods and distortions of this global scam. I don’t need subsidies to understand reality.

Menicholas

This is the sort of thing which makes me say, having been raised catholic, that I am “spiritual, not religious”.
Besides for that, since when are Vatican bureaucrats the designated arbiters of what is and what is not “the” “scientific point of view”?
That he could make such a comment disqualifies him from having an opinion worth a lick of spit.
The key word which proves this is true?
“The”.

Alan Robertson

Saying “spiritual, not religious”, is making an effort to avoid confusing the medium with the message, while trying to discern the message.

Menicholas

I think you are correct, although I never thought of it in those terms consciously.
I trust in the scientific method, but I do not trust the science bureaucracies that now, for all practical purposes, purport to “be” what science is.
This is a rather recent development.
I noticed something very similar regarding organized religion and God when I was a teenager.

gnomish

somewhere in the vatican is a box full of special items cleft from statues.
that’s used as a reference standard of intelligence there.

Clyde Spencer

gnomish,
Are you suggesting that the symbolic act of castrating statues reflects on the sterility and impotence of the eunuchs that run the Vatican?

gnomish

heh. almost, i was suggesting they are not capable of thinking out of the box.

This thing just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

Steve C

High office does not preclude foolish opinions.
Indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite.

Leo Smith

The problem is that the Vatican and Our dear old Monarch to be, the bear of little brain married to Camilla, both understand that their function is to set moral standards and stop divisive arguments.
But have failed to understand that sometimes argument indicates the wrong standards are being set.

jim heath

Obviously one religion is not enough.

Leo Smith

One religion is more than enough…

Tez

If global warming is a fact, why did they start calling it climate change?

Griff

Allegedly a Republican party spokesman invented the new term as the old one was too alarming.
So its a term from the non-IPCC side of the discussion, apparently

Menicholas

Aah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….eeh…hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You so funny!

Leo Smith
catweazle666

Making stuff up again Skanky, you patronising, condescending little slanderer?
You just can’t help yourself, can you?

markl

How do you know he/she’s little?

Gloateus

Why do you keep repeating this lie, Griff, when you’ve been shown repeatedly that it’s a totally bogus canard?

Streetcred

1822 … I’m a Catholic … yes, 1822 is when the Church finally conceded that the Earth orbited the Sun. So the Church has form when it comes to dogma, after all Galileo let them know in 1632 … it took nearly 200 hundred years to acknowledge this so I don’t hold any hope that they’re going to be blinded by an epiphany anytime soon!
Sick and tired of these Jesuits making a laughing stock out of the Church. I can only think that the current fool that is the Pope has been sent to test our patience!

Leo Smith

But the earth does not orbit the sun, any more than the sun orbits the earth.
Its just a convenient co-ordinate set to pick for approximate astronomical calculations.
And that’s before you enter the deeper metaphysical waters and decide where the earth ends and the sun begins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

Copernican astronomy is pre-Newtonian mechanics. Since the time of Newton, we already know the sun does not orbit the earth because both sun and earth orbit a common center of mass located inside the sun. BTW the heliosphere and atmosphere are plain physics, they are not metaphysics.

Menicholas

Yes, this is a form of sophistry I am sorry to say.
Even from the point of view of them both orbiting a common center of mass…this center is inside the Sun, so the fact remains the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
The sun wobbles a little, the Earth goes around it.
People have to be able to communicate.

Leo Smith

Dr Strangelove. Oh dear that went a little over your…
1/. Newtonian mechanics if it says anything at all, says that everything is revolving around the integrated average centre of mass of the universe, or something equally useless. Since we cant even solve a three body problem shoving a whole universe in there makes grown men cry. We pick co-ordinate systems that make the sums easy and get approximative answers by avoiding the stuff that us too hard to deal with.
2/. The heliosphere and the atmosphere are it’s true physics, but physics depends on metaphysics, that’s why its called ‘meta-physics’ . Where ‘the sun’ ‘stops’ is as much a matter of definition, as measurement. Is the heliosphere ‘part of’ the ‘sun’ ? If so we are inside the sun…etc etc.

The Reverend Badger

Leo – How many years ago did you read “Flatland” ?

1) Sun and earth is just a two-body problem. You just wish to complicate things you don’t understand by uttering philosophical mumbo jumbo.
2) Physics does not depend on metaphysics though philosophers want to believe that. The heliosphere is not part of the sun, it is part of the solar system. We are inside the solar system.
The sun wobbles, true. It is not sophistry. In Newtonian mechanics, the sun is a point mass that orbits another point center of mass.

Graham

‘…Sorondo dismissed deniers of climate change in a recent Vatican Radio interview as “a small, negligible minority.”’
Like the 3% who don’t agree with “97%” that CO2 emissions cause warming? Of course it does, but only alarmists believe that it matters.
As for “…feel I can’t say anything that is not potentially insulting to some Catholics or is overtly political…”, fair enough. So let Terry McCrann writing in The Australian the other day put it obliquely and tactfully to Sorondo and his fancy dress ilk, “Pose the question ‘Do you believe in climate change?’ and you define yourself as a moron.”

Chris Hanley

‘… he [Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo] explained, “… climate change is caused by human activity that employ fossil fuels …” ‘.
‘… Bishop Sorondo claimed the Pope’s teaching on global warming in the environmental encyclical was equally binding for Catholics as the Church’s teaching on abortion …’.
=========================
Roman Catholic Canon Law imposes automatic excommunication for abortion (all parties I assume) and also interestingly profession of Communism (Decree Against Communism 1949).
Anyway does that mean using fossil fuels, turning on the electric light and filling up the SUV say, are sins venial and mortal respectively?
http://elihos.com/elihos.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/20161029_stpeters.jpg
For the good of the RC Church that guy needs to be told to pull his head in.

Graham

“For the good of the RC Church that guy needs to be told to pull his head in.”
Higher up the pecking order, too, Chris.

Frank DeMaris

Once again, the Roman church supports the popular “science” while condemning what will turn out to be the truth. They learned nothing from Galileo.

Neil Jordan

Failure to believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will (apparently) NOT lead to excommunication:
http://www.catholicstand.com/pope-francis-has-single-handedly-destroyed-catholicism-again/
“I repeat, once again: The media does not exist to tell the truth – it exists to make money. Juicy headlines sell newspapers and garner millions of website hits, which generate revenue. “Pope Reiterates 2,000-year-old Teaching of the Church” doesn’t make money; “Pope Declares that All Atheists Go to Heaven” does. Truth has nothing to do with it, and this type of misrepresentation for personal gain is something that’s been happening as long as the papacy has existed.”

CheshireRed

Bloke who believes in fairy tales believes in fairy tales.

jorgekafkazar

On the other hand, he doesn’t approve of fairies.

I Came I Saw I Left

That was so ghey!

jipebe29

A religion does not admit that its dogma, especially the Catholic Church, can be challenged. Since, according to Archbishop Sorondo, there is no question of criticizing the dogma of anthropogenic climate warming, this dogma is therefore a new religion, based on pseudo-science, and those who criticize or refute its Holy Word are heretics. When did the pyres of the new Inquisition chastise these wretches?

Menicholas

Hey, God said he will not destroy the earth with water again. So cross (tee hee) sea level rise off the list of worries.
And Jim “The Creator” Hansen says that global warming will not be a problem because the heat is just gonna melt ice.
Logically speaking, the end of the world is hereby cancelled.
Good night folks!
Drive safely!

jipebe29

Help: Savonarole is back!

Vincent Causey

The Earth being round is a binary choice – it is either round or flat (actually it is oblate, but the point holds – there is a definite reference point to compare the round vs flat earth). However, when somebody “denies” human caused climate change, what are they denying?
Are they denying that human produced co2 causes a small rise in temperature? Are they denying larger temperature rises as a result of feedback? Are they denying very larger, runaway temperature rises with catastrophic consequences? Or do they deny human produced co2 has any effect at all? Clearly, the statement that some people are climate deniers is not a binary choice and to make such a statement is meaningless.

Allow me to suggest that the Archbishop, the Pope, Bill Nye, Al Gore, Mickey Mann, etc are all denying that the entire issue is nothing but nonsense and superstition. Global warming, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas, anthropogenic carbon dioxide, are for all intents and purposes no more near reality that Daffy Duck, Goofy, and Mickey Mouse.

jipebe29

The redoubtable virus “delirium carbonum” has done terrible damage to the Vatican ….

DrStrange

From Wiki
“The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy,”
I see we have another Pope Urban VIII in Pope Francis
Not much has changed then