Was the Pope justified in criticizing climate change activists?

[Moridin]

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom

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.

Do you think it is appropriate for a religious leader of billions to make such statements about things that are, honestly, quite outside his range of 'expertise'? If one called the IPCC biased and/or politically motivated, what can one say about the Pope in this case?

 

[Economist]

Do you think it is appropriate for a religious leader of billions to make such statements about things that are, honestly, quite outside his range of 'expertise'? If one called the IPCC biased and/or politically motivated, what can one say about the Pope in this case?

Yeah, why not. Many politicians rant and rave about climate change although this is outside of their range of expertise. It's ultimately up to individuals to make their decision on what they think is true. I agree, that the IPCC and Pope are obviously both biased and politically motivated (although the degree to which is different), but so are many people. Let people say what they want, debate, etc and eventually the truth will probably come of it.

From your quote above it doesn't sound like he denied it, but rather told those who listen to him that they should be skeptical and not just believe whatever they hear. I think this is sound advice, and probably the most scientific things he's ever said.

 

[mgb_phys]

Nice to see a religous leader claiming that belief should only come from hard scientific evidence and not just dogma.

 

[Moonbear]

From your quote above it doesn't sound like he denied it, but rather told those who listen to him that they should be skeptical and not just believe whatever they hear. I think this is sound advice, and probably the most scientific things he's ever said.

Nice to see a religous leader claiming that belief should only come from hard scientific evidence and not just dogma.

I agree, from the quotes posted, he isn't expressing a viewpoint other than to leave it to the experts rather than making rash decisions based on non-expert opinions.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If one called the IPCC biased and/or politically motivated, what can one say about the Pope in this case?

That he is biased and/or politically motivated too?

 

[stewartcs]

It seems by virtue of his position he must be biased...at least some.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems by virtue of his position he must be biased...at least some.

What would be his bias and why? What does Catholicism have to do with global warming? I can't see why he would be biased either way except due to personal bias like anyone.

I wonder how accurately this was reported.

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

Since melting ice caps are a focal point of the science, I find this statement somewhat confusing.

 

[opus]

I find the scepticism offensive, given scientific consensus on global warming. How can the Pope warn of public policy being based on the "environmentalist" movement, when what is needed is clearly outlined in the IPCC report? Warning scientists about acting like politicians is silly, you should be worried about politicians acting like scientists.

To think that the IPCC is biased means you're obviously thinking outside your expertise. Honestly, the criticism of the IPCC report is shabby. 600 authors, 620 reviewers, and 113 governments certainly has to say something. Criticize the report all you want, but the other side has nothing to offer on this scale.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

600 authors, 620 reviewers, and 113 governments.

If they were right, one would be enough. (Thanks Al)

 

[Economist]

Warning scientists about acting like politicians is silly,

Not exactly. I mean, scientists can say what they want about policy (just like the Pope can say what he wants about science). But policy prescriptions can often be out of a scientists expertise. I'm not saying they can't say whatever they want, I just think people should take their policy suggestions with a grain of salt. They often don't possesses the skills to know how regulations will affect human behavior, nor do they often know the costs or benefits of such policy. These are very important concerns when making policy decisions.

Say what you want about this guy, but he definitely brings up some good points. We have to at least consider these sorts of issues when discussing climate change policy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=Bjorn+Lomborg&total=74&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

you should be worried about politicians acting like scientists.

I agree with this. Did you know that many of the members of the IPCC are actually not scientists, but rather politicians/beurocrats?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If they were right, one would be enough. (Thanks Al)

What qualifies your opinion? Are you a climate expert or just claiming expertise?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What qualifies your opinion? Are you a climate expert or just claiming expertise?

Claiming?

 

[stewartcs]

What would be his bias and why? What does Catholicism have to do with global warming? I can't see why he would be biased either way except due to personal bias like anyone.

Essentially that is what I'm saying. His personal beliefs (based on Catholicism) will bias his opinion, so by being the Pope it seems his personal biases (based on Catholicism) would influence his actions as well as his statements.

I'm not stating that Catholicism has anything to due with global warming or anthing in the teaches of Catholicism have anything to due with it (it might but I have no idea).

 

[chemisttree]

Essentially that is what I'm saying. His personal beliefs (based on Catholicism) will bias his opinion, so by being the Pope it seems his personal biases (based on Catholicism) would influence his actions as well as his statements.

I'm not stating that Catholicism has anything to due with global warming or anthing in the teaches of Catholicism have anything to due with it (it might but I have no idea).

The point isn't that he is an expert on GW or not, the point is that he communicates directly with God and that he is right. His religion dictates that the world will end with Armaggedon, not global warming. Since the good book is the word of God, anything we say that contradicts that is just plain wrong... and he isn't afraid to tell us so.

BTW,

NICE AVATAR STEWARTCS!

 

[Evo]

What would be his bias and why? What does Catholicism have to do with global warming? I can't see why he would be biased either way except due to personal bias like anyone.

It's certainly not personal opinion, the Pope is privy to information at pretty much the same level as other world leaders and would certainly be privy to the truth on climate change before it's re-packaged for the public, and he has apparently decided to blow the whistle on the scare mongerers... The gig is up. Kudos to the Pope!

 

[wolram]

No doubt the pope has ways of getting information

 

[stewartcs]

The point isn't that he is an expert on GW or not, the point is that he communicates directly with God and that he is right. His religion dictates that the world will end with Armaggedon, not global warming. Since the good book is the word of God, anything we say that contradicts that is just plain wrong... and he isn't afraid to tell us so.

BTW,

NICE AVATAR STEWARTCS!

DUDE you stole my AVATAR!

I called dibs on it first!

 

[stewartcs]

OPPS! I just realized I spelled "due" wrong!

 

[Contrapositive]

Unless any of you hold a phd in climatology, I think he has as much a right to comment on the subject as any of you.

 

[chemisttree]

DUDE you stole my AVATAR!

I called dibs on it first!

Why is mine sooo much bigger than yours?

(this is so embarassing, I'm staying out of your threads from now on!)

 

[mgb_phys]

Unless any of you hold a phd in climatology, I think he has as much a right to comment on the subject as any of you.

Except of course he was doing it with his pope hat on, so he was speaking on behalf of God/the church/1 billion catholics.

The article is in the Daily Mail - an excellent product for lining cat litter trays whos use as a cleaning product is spoilt by their tendency to smear ink over it'.

The actual statement - which is a masterpiece of fencesitting - and says nothing is at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

 

[Contrapositive]

Except of course he was doing it with his pope hat on, so he was speaking on behalf of God/the church/1 billion catholics.

I don't know if I missed something or not, but his statements don't seem to be radical at all. I don't see where he said God is going to smite all the global warming scientists into Hell. You're over reacting if you think this is going to start up some crusade against global warming.

 

[mgb_phys]

I was responding to your quote that he has as much right to express an opinion as anyone who isn't a climatologist.

That isn't true if you are saying it in an official Vatican letter. It wasn't a statement ex cathedra - so it wasn't from God - but it was a statement of the Vatican and hence the church's position.

Actual if you read it - it doesn't say anything at al.
ps. did you mean radical not racial ?

 

[Evo]

Except of course he was doing it with his pope hat on, so he was speaking on behalf of God/the church/1 billion catholics.

The article is in the Daily Mail - an excellent product for lining cat litter trays whos use as a cleaning product is spoilt by their tendency to smear ink over it'.

The actual statement - which is a masterpiece of fencesitting - and says nothing is at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

Article #7 is pretty much verbatim what they printed in the article.

The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. 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, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No way are you going to get anywhere on global warming without the Pope and his 1.3 billion followers. He is allowed to talk with his hat on. And if you intend to do something about the climate instead of just using it as a club you must listen to what he says.

The article is garbage. It puts words in his mouth that simply weren't there to begin with.

 

[mgb_phys]

It does seem to have been written by (or at least for) the whitehouse:

for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves

We must develop the artic oilfields for the sake of the children.

Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all

India and China don't have to do anything to reduce emissions.

above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development

Don't do anything until every country agrees.

it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken

Lets sit on it for another couple of generations.

 

[Contrapositive]

That isn't true if you are saying it in an official Vatican letter. It wasn't a statement ex cathedra - so it wasn't from God - but it was a statement of the Vatican and hence the church's position.

Yes I understand that. I just don't think it is going to have a strong impact on either side of the global warming debate. Saying the Pope speaks for one billion people is an exaggeration. Half of my family calls themselves Catholic and they hardly care what the Pope things. My observation has been most people go to Church on Sunday to beg for forgiveness for what they did the rest of the week. Then they go right back to sinning and not giving a damn about what the Church thinks. Also, a huge chunk of Catholics live in poverty in Latin America and probably don't even know what global warming is.

ps. did you mean radical not racial ?

Give me a break I've been studying for finals all week.

 

[Pelt]

The actual statement - which is a masterpiece of fencesitting - and says nothing is at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

Not sure how a general statement of principles regarding man's relationship with the environment amounts to fence-sitting or saying nothing. The message, however, doesn't raise any particular climate change issue. Thanks for posting the link, though.

 

[mgb_phys]

Give me a break I've been studying for finals all week.

Good Luck - One of the great things about approaching middle age, it takes you ever further from finals

 

[Evo]

It does seem to have been written by (or at least for) the whitehouse:


We must develop the artic oilfields for the sake of the children.


India and China don't have to do anything to reduce emissions.


Don't do anything until every country agrees.


Lets sit on it for another couple of generations.

 

[Benzoate]

I think the pope has the right to expressed his opinion on global warming just like any politician or political pundit . Its up to us to decide whether to take him seriously or not.I personally believe people should look at research papers on global warming instead of paying $10 to see a documentary at the movies .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Essentially that is what I'm saying. His personal beliefs (based on Catholicism) will bias his opinion, so by being the Pope it seems his personal biases (based on Catholicism) would influence his actions as well as his statements.

I'm not stating that Catholicism has anything to due with global warming or anthing in the teaches of Catholicism have anything to due with it (it might but I have no idea).

That's my point. Having been raised Catholic myself [no longer though], I don't see how his faith would have any influence on his opinion. For one, Catholics are not prophetic. They also accept and teach scientific concepts in their schools, like evolution. The church even runs it's own telescope - The Pope Scope.

 

[stewartcs]

Why is mine sooo much bigger than yours?

(this is so embarassing, I'm staying out of your threads from now on!)

Hey haven't you ever heard size doesn't matter!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point isn't that he is an expert on GW or not, the point is that he communicates directly with God and that he is right.

The pope does not claim to be in direct communication with God any more than anyone else who prays.

His religion dictates that the world will end with Armaggedon, not global warming. Since the good book is the word of God, anything we say that contradicts that is just plain wrong... and he isn't afraid to tell us so.

I don't think this represents the Catholic view of things. They don't interpret Revelations as do most pop religions. Either way, religion also dicates that we were created by God but Catholics believe in evolution.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's certainly not personal opinion, the Pope is privy to information at pretty much the same level as other world leaders and would certainly be privy to the truth on climate change before it's re-packaged for the public, and he has apparently decided to blow the whistle on the scare mongerers... The gig is up. Kudos to the Pope!

That is an interesting point of view. So now can we expect a bunch of Pope papers in Earth sciences?

I tend to prefer better sources.