Stream: Pope Francis Says Ask Scientists About Their Uncertainties In Global Warming. Good Idea
A reporter asked the Holy Father about the recent hurricanes in the Atlantic, adding the questions “Is there a moral responsibility for political leaders who reject collaborating with the other nations to control the emission of greenhouse gas? Why do they deny that climate change is also be the work of man?”
The Pope answered in part:
…if we don’t turn back we’re going down, that’s true. Climate change, you see the effects and scientists say clearly which is the path to follow. And all of us have a responsibility…to accept from the opinion or make decisions, and we have to take it seriously…
I would say: everyone has their own moral responsibility, first. Second, if one is a bit doubtful that this is not so true, let them ask the scientists. They are very clear. They are not opinions on the air, they are very clear. And then let them decide, and history will judge their decisions. Thanks.
The Pope is right. It is a good idea to ask actual scientists about their best guess of the uncertainties involved in climate change. One thing every climate scientist, myself included, will tell you is that it is 100% certain the climate will change.
It is as certain that nothing can stop the climate from changing. Let me emphasize that “nothing”. It means just what it says. Nothing.
The climate of the earth has never stood still, and never will. That means efforts to “battle” or “stop” climate change are futile. This position in physics is known as climate realism.
[…]
The big question is how much influence does mankind have? And the answer is nobody knows.
[…]
The Pope replied to the reporter (the ellipsis are original):
Why? A phrase comes to me from the Old Testament, I believe from the Psalm: Man is stupid. He is stubborn one who does not see, the only animal of creation that puts his leg in the same hole is man…the horse, no, they don’t do it…There is arrogance, the sufficiency of “it’s not like that,” and then there is the “pocket” God, not only about creation, so many decisions, so many contradictions (…) depend on money.
And there (we must suppose) is […]
I, an expert, recommend clicking here and reading the rest.
As I understand it, Harvey was devastating because it did not move much after reaching Houston, so all the rain in Harvey fell on Houston, flooding the city.
Now, if Harvey is the result of Climate Change, then I would like some reasonable physical explanation why Harvey sat on Houston, instead of moving on like a proper storm. In particular, I am very curious about the role of CO2 in this fenomenon.
The whole concern about Global Warming/Climate Change seems like it can be boiled down to this: Change is bad/change makes me scared.
Even if we accept humans are changing the weather, climate patterns, etc. from fossil fuels, the effect is not all bad. We only hear/read about the bad, though. Some areas get subjected to drought…but others become green and prosperous (how often do you hear about that?).
Coastlines will become inundated under another inch or so of sea rise (or whatever the figure is) — over the next 100 years goes the reporting. People can move, and do move, just like their ancestors. And as grim as such sea rise is purported to be over the next century, why is it that nobody notices that every affected building standing now is not designed or expected to survive that long anyway? Regardless of the climate, those things must change over the same period anyway. To hear/read the alarmists, a tidal wave of apocalyptic proportions is imminent —
— the whole pattern of alarm from the alarmists is permeated with fear of change (and recall how often Bill Clinton talked of “change” when campaigning for the Presidency, and not fearing change … later Obama did similar with a slight twist, ‘Change we can believe in’ … there are reasons for why the Left, in overwhelming particular, is fearful of “change” and why climate change is a point of fear, but that’s for another day…).
Michael Crichton had a great speech & essay, with some limitations on what science can inform (which, no doubt, will appeal to the “scientism” crowd here), and also on an optimistic outlook — noting how humanity has adapted and invented ways to prosperity and how we ought not dismiss such further innovation from counterbalancing any adverse effects of humanity (assuming those effects exist).
The speech, available as an illustrated PDF on-line, was: “The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming,” given at the National Press Club, Wash DC, Jan 25, 2005.
One on-line source is: http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_global%20warming.pdf
The climate scientists must be very uncertain because they have over 100 climate models. If they really knew what they were doing they would only need 1 climate model.
The last time the Pope went along with the scientific consensus was in the Galileo affair, and that did not end at all well.
As I said yesterday…
We need a new Bible that defers to “Science” instead of God
… er
The day before (the Fr. Martin post)
“But, to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scripture false.
Freedom of belief is pernicious, It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.” Cardinal Bellarmine
Bellarmine was right. The sun is not in the center of the heavens.