Yay for the Pope

[repentant]

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490)

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

[Forest]

Personally, I like global warming. Whatever the reason for warming, it has made the climate here almost ideal.

[tekiahteruah]

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-21248

Above is the translation of the message-- I didn't see much of what the OP article claims to find in it, though. The quoted portions are there, but I don't know how they interpreted it the ways they did.

[ClementofRome]

You can bet that he will receive some real crap from the looney leftists who worship at the throne of atheism, for those remarks!

[JustinHesychast]

Disgusting.

That is all.

[Shubunkin]

Hah, I was just at a website that stated the chemtrails (or contrails) that has that nasty stuff spreading all over our environment contains heavy metals, and is causing global warming. :o

I wouldn't doubt it, because I have a head cold, and I'll believe anything right now. For what it's worth, I saw the contrails in the sky yesterday in our eastern sky. I get sick every time I see those things. Other people are sick too. Wish I knew what the truth was. :(

[Rowan]

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-21248

Above is the translation of the message-- I didn't see much of what the OP article claims to find in it, though. The quoted portions are there, but I don't know how they interpreted it the ways they did.

I didn't know either, but I guess it's this quote:

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."

I guess.

If so, then good one on ya', Pope Benedict.

[SeraphimSarov]

Fear-mongering... the left in the US has its ways of scaring us into voting for them, and the right has their ways of scaring us into voting for them... it seems to these people, the concept of truth is dead.

[tekiahteruah]

I didn't know either, but I guess it's this quote:

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."

I guess.

If so, then good one on ya', Pope Benedict.

Yeah, I think that is the quote it's referring to, as well. But the writer of the OP article was taking a LOT out of that one quote. Pope Benedict did not directly mention global warming at all or which scientific assessments he agrees with or not. He also didn't use any words like "fear-mongering." All he said is that we should be prudent and be in dialogue on these matters, and not jump to conclusions.

[Shubunkin]

I thought cows were the fault of global warming. :)

They predicted global warming would happen with the loss of the rain forest, but then they never mention that fact now. Curious. :confused:

[ClementofRome]

In the 1970's it was the global cooling scare....in the '00's it is the global warming scare....what will it be in another 30 years when this fad has run its course...

[Shubunkin]

In the 1970's it was the global cooling scare....in the '00's it is the global warming scare....what will it be in another 30 years when this fad has run its course...
Don't forget the killer bees scare. :eek:

West Nile Virus? :eek:

What's next, or do we really want to know? :(

[JustinHesychast]

OK, so I am sick of the 70's global cooling scare being brought up. Due to global warming, the ocean currents can easily and drastically be affected. Ocean currents play a gigantic role in the Earth's temperatures. If that flow is changed, halted, etc. due to global warming, rising ocean levels, etc., there could be a massive gobal cooling (but I think the word "freezing" would be more appropriate).

[Guineverelyndy]

OK, so I am sick of the 70's global cooling scare being brought up. Due to global warming, the ocean currents can easily and drastically be affected. Ocean currents play a gigantic role in the Earth's temperatures. If that flow is changed, halted, etc. due to global warming, rising ocean levels, etc., there could be a massive gobal cooling (but I think the word "freezing" would be more appropriate).

So essentially you are saying that global warming affects ocean currents. And if everything warms up, causing the ocean currents to change, then everything could freeze?

Huh what?

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

I wonder if it could be that the earth goes through cycles. Maybe there are warm ages and ice ages and we are entering a warm age.

[ClementofRome]

This "rising ocean levels" due to ice melting thing is a real gas.

Take a glass.....fill it with ice cubes.....then fill it with water.....wait until the ice is melted......does the glass overflow?

[nutroll]

This "rising ocean levels" due to ice melting thing is a real gas.

Take a glass.....fill it with ice cubes.....then fill it with water.....wait until the ice is melted......does the glass overflow?
This one never gets old. The problem has never been the ice in the water, it is the ice on land (i.e. the Antarctic ice shelf) that poses a danger of raising the sea level. Take a bathtub that is full and has a pedestal submerged in it, on which is sitting a 5 gallon block of ice. Suppose that the ice melts, how much water will end up on the floor? It is an intellectually dishonest question, because it makes enough sense that people never take the time to think about how utterly absurd the question really is. We can have a discussion on whether the Antarctic ice shelf is in danger of melting, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that it would raise the sea level if it did.

[the_Abbot]

If all the ice in the Antarctic melts will the sea level rise high enough to submerge Florida? Whenever I hear talk about this it always concerns me.

[ClementofRome]

This one never gets old. The problem has never been the ice in the water, it is the ice on land (i.e. the Antarctic ice shelf) that poses a danger of raising the sea level. Take a bathtub that is full and has a pedestal submerged in it, on which is sitting a 5 gallon block of ice. Suppose that the ice melts, how much water will end up on the floor? It is an intellectually dishonest question, because it makes enough sense that people never take the time to think about how utterly absurd the question really is. We can have a discussion on whether the Antarctic ice shelf is in danger of melting, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that it would raise the sea level if it did.

Understood....but that is one big ocean(s).

ok...so we loose Florida and California in the next 1000 years..... :)

[MariaRegina]

Who will be around to see the flooding?

[Shubunkin]

This global warming stuff will be gone in two years, with another scare taking its place. Just wait and see.

[nutroll]

Just doing some quick calculations based on the volume of ice on the antarctic ice shelf and the volume of the earth, I came up with a figure of 52 meters added to the sea level. Now that is assuming that the volume of ice has been accurately measures, and that the earth was an actual sphere, and also assuming that the entire ice shelf would, or could melt, but it is not a small amount of water, even with the oceans being quite large. After I did the calculations, I checked around to see if there were figures which would confirm what I had come up with, and sure enough, it's pretty darn close. I think it is highly unlikely, even in the worst case scenario that the entire ice sheet would melt, but there is clearly enough ice on land which, if melted, to cause very significant rises in sea level. Even if I am off by a factor of 10 (anyone else love Fermi questions?) it would still be a massive change.

So believe what you want to about global warming, or man-made global warming, but realize that whether it is real or not, there's still a heck of a lot of ice that we don't want melting.

[SumTinWong]

Fear seems to be an effective weapon in todays world. After 9/11 when America found out what many knew for years, that they were not safe, the fear that ran rampant WAS noticed by the big shots and IS used today by both sides of the party line to fit their agendas.

It sucks that fear, which is evil (there is no fear in love, for love casts out all fear), has such a huge place with us today. We are afraid of losing our jobs, getting fat, not having the biggest diamond, best car, etc.... it just doesn't stop.

I dunno, I don't even watch the news much anymore, because it seems all they want you to do is be afraid of what is outside your house, and even that is not even safe now as we now have killer toys. . .

[JustinHesychast]

So essentially you are saying that global warming affects ocean currents. And if everything warms up, causing the ocean currents to change, then everything could freeze?

Huh what?

Yes. It's called science. Entry level high school science, at that. The ocean currents are sensitive. They flow warm air and water to other places, controlling temperatures. Without it, Europe it would be quite cooler, for example.

This one never gets old. The problem has never been the ice in the water, it is the ice on land (i.e. the Antarctic ice shelf) that poses a danger of raising the sea level. Take a bathtub that is full and has a pedestal submerged in it, on which is sitting a 5 gallon block of ice. Suppose that the ice melts, how much water will end up on the floor? It is an intellectually dishonest question, because it makes enough sense that people never take the time to think about how utterly absurd the question really is. We can have a discussion on whether the Antarctic ice shelf is in danger of melting, but it doesn't take much thinking to realize that it would raise the sea level if it did.

Ya. :D

If all the ice in the Antarctic melts will the sea level rise high enough to submerge Florida? Whenever I hear talk about this it always concerns me.

Not all the way. But the outer edges, yes. Essentially roughly half of Florida. New York? Underwater. :P It isn't something being made up. Over the last several years in particular, more and more small developing countries or islands are being flooded from rising oceans, whereas for previous generations this was not the case.

Understood....but that is one big ocean(s).

ok...so we loose Florida and California in the next 1000 years..... :)

100, give or take a bit.

Who will be around to see the flooding?

It depends how much we as humans change our way of life (not even drastically, if only people weren't so damned close-minded). Me? I might see some. Were I to have a child? Well, I would hate to give this Earth to my kid in the condition it'll be in when they get older.

This global warming stuff will be gone in two years, with another scare taking its place. Just wait and see.

LOL. :D

Fear seems to be an effective weapon in todays world. After 9/11 when America found out what many knew for years, that they were not safe, the fear that ran rampant WAS noticed by the big shots and IS used today by both sides of the party line to fit their agendas.

It sucks that fear, which is evil (there is no fear in love, for love casts out all fear), has such a huge place with us today. We are afraid of losing our jobs, getting fat, not having the biggest diamond, best car, etc.... it just doesn't stop.

I dunno, I don't even watch the news much anymore, because it seems all they want you to do is be afraid of what is outside your house, and even that is not even safe now as we now have killer toys. . .

Sadly, true. The toy thing is driving me bonkers. Media overhypes stuff like global warming (but it's better to say global climate change, with the potential to freeze and such DUE TO warming). I don't get my news from the news. :P

Bah. I probably just wasted 10 minutes typing anyways.

[MariaRegina]

It has been very cold in Los Angeles.

Weather has dropped below freezing in my area several times already. Usually we do not have freezing weather until winter or early spring. Winter has come early here.

Also according to scientists in Britain and in the United States, the global warming theory is not very scientific but is more of a political call to enforce global governmental restrictions.

Anyone dare call this a conspiracy to enforce martial law?

[SeraphimSarov]

I dare to call it the left's version of fear-mongering.

[IowaLutheran]

This "rising ocean levels" due to ice melting thing is a real gas.

Take a glass.....fill it with ice cubes.....then fill it with water.....wait until the ice is melted......does the glass overflow?

I think they say that its the melting of ice on land (such as the Greenland ice sheet), which would run off into the ocean, that would cause rising ocean levels.

[IowaLutheran]

It has been very cold in Los Angeles.

Weather has dropped below freezing in my area several times already. Usually we do not have freezing weather until winter or early spring. Winter has come early here.

Also according to scientists in Britain and in the United States, the global warming theory is not very scientific but is more of a political call to enforce global governmental restrictions.

Anyone dare call this a conspiracy to enforce martial law?

The debate isn't about whether global warming is happening - the raw data suggests that average global temperatures have been rising - the debate is over the cause (man or nature), whether the warming will continue, and if so, at what rate.

[jckstraw72]

global warming is indeed a looney left wing frenzy. all we need to do is tape the cow's butts shut and we're good to go.

[Shubunkin]

Yes. It's called science. Entry level high school science, at that. The ocean currents are sensitive. They flow warm air and water to other places, controlling temperatures. Without it, Europe it would be quite cooler, for example.



Oh, just wait until you get to college, and you will find out everything you learned in high school was wrong. Even math will be wrong, history, science, biology, just about everything.

I can hardly wait. :P

Everything they teach in high school (and lower levels) always was a political agenda-based curriculum.

[Xpycoctomos]

Oh, just wait until you get to college, and you will find out everything you learned in high school was wrong. Even math will be wrong, history, science, biology, just about everything.

I can hardly wait. :P

Everything they teach in high school (and lower levels) always was a political agenda-based curriculum.
I'm out of high school.. have been for a while now. I haven't found what he said there to be untrue. I think everything he said is grounded in very hard science that, no one really questions. England would (and has been) a VERY cold place (compared to now) were it not for the Gulf Stream, for example.

Xpy

[Shubunkin]

I'm out of high school.. have been for a while now. I haven't found what he said there to be untrue. I think everything he said is grounded in very hard science that, no one really questions. England would (and has been) a VERY cold place (compared to now) were it not for the Gulf Stream, for example.

Xpy
It not only happened to my generation, but also my kids. So, it cannot be isolated incident.

[JustinHesychast]

Global climate change has nothing to do with politics; it's just the left-wing decided to take it up and user fear and such for political gain.

[EricTheRed]

I wouldnt mind some beach front property

[jckstraw72]

Justin learn to control yourself

[Dorothea]

I thought cows were the fault of global warming.

They predicted global warming would happen with the loss of the rain forest, but then they never mention that fact now. Curious. :confused:A week or so ago, Rush was talking about global warming and read the list of things that cause global warming. It was alphabetical, and it took him around 5 minutes to get through it all. It seems everything causes it. http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/unsure.gif http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/huh.gif http://209.85.12.227/11921/19/emo/shrug.gif http://209.85.12.227/11921/19/emo/icon_rolleyes.gif

[SeraphimSarov]

Global climate change has nothing to do with politics; it's just the left-wing decided to take it up and user fear and such for political gain.
I'm going to point out the obvious.

Justin, you cannot "explode" over a computer. All we see is text on a screen, and you are fully capable of editing what you write before you post it for the whole world to see. Do you think that using abrasive language is going to get your point across? No, it makes you look like you've run completely out of arguments and that all you can think to do now is throw a temper tantrum.

I would advise you to stop watching the politicians on TV who do this and learn to argue rationally. Don't give your opponents in debate ammunition like you've given above -- it completely destroys your credibility.

[Akathist]

This thread has been moved to the Debate subforum based upon consensus of staff.

[JustinHesychast]

Eh, it isn't that Kjell. Ya, I know it does nothing but fuel the opponent's fire and whatnot. I am just so sick of people. That's all.

[Shubunkin]

Let me put it as best I know how. Just because this comes out of a high school science teacher's mouth, or just because it comes out of a politician's mouth, and just because they are saying the same things doesn't make it so. God is still in control.

Anyone over 30 here on this forum can name many so-called "scientific" fact scares that the media ran heavy with for a few years (sometimes less than that), only to drop them and start with another one. It gets tiring to us older folks. This cause of a naturally occurring event is not going to be what it may seem. The UN has blamed the U. S. entirely for this stuff. This makes the political gains into this country from other countries at more of an advantage. For them!

I'm all for reducing emissions from our cars, but we already did this. Remember when the catalytic converters for our cars first came out? The cars barely ran, and the gas mileage went down. Our cars are burning a lot more cleanly now, with improved systems on our cars. But this is never enough. What it is that the rest of the world wants our cars for? I think it's because we are on the verge of alternate fuels, and the oil industry is going to go sour over it. I think they have to grab on to fear to get us to do their will. There is a lot at stake here, and it's more than just air pollution, or global warming.

Got a question for the guys here.

You know the Prius, the little eco-friendly invention by Toyota? What happens to the battery after ten years, when it needs replaced? Where does it go, and what happens to it? I know someone who just paid $40,000 + for a new Prius, and was recently asked this, and he said he didn't know.

[Xpycoctomos]

It not only happened to my generation, but also my kids. So, it cannot be isolated incident.
What happened during your and your kids generation? I'm confused... sorry.

[nestoj]

There is a theory that rising levels of oceans are not catastrophic on itself, but the side effect is. It goes like this: due to the density of sea water (salinity) momentum of water currents (transfer of kinetic energy) is much easier than trough freshwater. Basically, that's what makes a job for a warm currents easier. Due to the melting of ice caps, large amounts of freshwater will be released into the seas which will cause salinity to drop down (that would be lower density). Lower density means lesser energy transfer and by consequence slowing down of warm currents. That would be like unplugging the heating of the oceans. Due to the global cooling of the oceans temperature on land would drop too, but the good thing is - the ice will again start to build up. That would be OK (God made nature to repair itself), except in the case when warm currents are completely halted. Then, rebuilding of ice would have no positive effect since we cannot jumpstart the currents again. Due to this, temperature would continue to decline, and we have a new ice age.

But it's just a theory.

nestoj
God helps

[JustinHesychast]

But it's just a theory.


So is gravity. ;)

[Xpycoctomos]

There is a theory that rising levels of oceans are not catastrophic on itself, but the side effect is. It goes like this: due to the density of sea water (salinity) momentum of water currents (transfer of kinetic energy) is much easier than trough freshwater. Basically, that's what makes a job for a warm currents easier. Due to the melting of ice caps, large amounts of freshwater will be released into the seas which will cause salinity to drop down (that would be lower density). Lower density means lesser energy transfer and by consequence slowing down of warm currents. That would be like unplugging the heating of the oceans. Due to the global cooling of the oceans temperature on land would drop too, but the good thing is - the ice will again start to build up. That would be OK (God made nature to repair itself), except in the case when warm currents are completely halted. Then, rebuilding of ice would have no positive effect since we cannot jumpstart the currents again. Due to this, temperature would continue to decline, and we have a new ice age.

But it's just a theory.

nestoj
God helps
That's what I heard more than once.

And you're right, it is just a theory. But what bothers me is when people act like since it's just a theory, it's never going to happen (I know you aren't saying this). A theory needs to be treated carefully. If it has good science behind it it needs to be taken very seriously while at the same time being balanced with any science that might speak against that theory. But the concept that "we've heard scare tactics before and they've never come true" while tempting is a terrible reason to not take seriously a theory grounded in solid science.

It is not stupid that people don't accept the theory that global warming is partly caused by humans as long as that sceptisism is based in some real science that seriously challenges the science behind the mentioned theory. And it's not stupid to support the threory of partially man-caused global warming as long as it is based on real science that can answer many of the doubts that contradictiing theories bring up.

But too often we shove ourselves into thsi camp or taht camp.

I don't know for sure if the theory that we cause global warming is true or not. But the science behind it seems to be well researched and I am just not coming across a lot of non-propagandistic scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. I'm not saying it's not out there... I just haven't found it... yet. But even if/when I do read some good contradictory theories, unless I am 100% convinced that we have nothing to do wtih global warming and such,I have to take seriously the account that PERHAPS we are... because in the meantime, I have to take seriously that I might be playing a small part (however miniscule) in adultering God's creation. I honestly don't think people like Rush would ever care. People like Rush seem to believe that the Earth is ours to do wtih it as we please. What a terrible witness to the Christ.

Xpy

PS: that was also not an endorsement of Al Gore's tactics... I HATE so-called "documentaries" made for Hollywood that give you half the facts... some true some not. For this reason, I have never seen his movie and don't plan to. And I think the Nobel committee made a mockery of itself and the prize by awarding it to him.

[Xpycoctomos]

So is gravity. ;)
True, and while I am on your side that we should be concerned about our effects on the environment, an important difference to remember is that there is no plausible contradicting theory to suggest that gravity does not exist. That's what makes that theory pretty much ironclad (although, if I am not mistaken, there have been some elements to the theory of gravity and how we understand it that have been successfully brought to question... perhaps I am just confusing that with Relativity??)

Although I mentioned above that I haven't seen any good theory to contradict the theory that we in part cause global warming, I have a strong hunch that such does exist. As strong as the theory is that we partially cause global wraming is... it will never be as iron-clad (or near that) as the theory of gravity :)

Xpy