Benedict: In praise of climate-change skepticism

I think that there is scientific consensus that the climate is changing, but I don't know that there is a consensus that we're the ones causing it.

Why are doom-mongers like Al Gore and Laurie David getting fawning coverage?

I assume for the same reason that the Daniel Pipes/Michael Leeden types were treated so seriously -- they offered conflict, and therefore a story to tell, even if their narrative about a Dread Islamic Menace turned out to be an exaggeration at best, war-mongering at worst.

And yet I do consider climate-change a serious problem for the human race -- it will effect how the average man and women lives and dies, so we better care. I'd rather not have the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, but I wish the debate focused on controlling the Earth's climate for the benefit of all of humanity rather than issues re: some silly personal dislike of Al Gore.

Let's focus on policy. Far more interesting than a love or hate of Al Gore or Benedict XVI.

Focus on the issue as thinking human beings, not as followers of this or that religion or political system.

DU

My take would be that proof cannot be achieved in a field such as climatology, because (i) there are two many variables, and (ii) we have only one example to look at.

However, many of the things needed to oppose climate change are good in themselves:
(i) protect woods and reforest marginal land
(ii) reduce marine pollution to protect phytoplankton
(iii) take essentially any alternative to using Middle East oil - if we were really successful in this, we could even induce global famine among Muslims
(iv) drive less and improve public transport
(v) holiday nearer home;
(vi) buy more locally produced food
(vii) try to live more simply all round.

Finally, the Pope criticises "pseudo-religious beliefs", but why the "pseudo-"? Why exclude people for whom the environment IS a religious issue, like neopagans, Taoists and indigenous religionists?

Rombald -- seems to me that the pope was not saying that environmental concern is not a religious issue, but rather that we should be wary of those who make environmentalism itself akin to a religion. In that sense, environmentalism can indeed be a 'pseudo-religion.'

Also, it is not only neopagans, Taoists, and the like for which the enviroment is a religious issue. As Wendell Berry, Kallistos Ware, John Paul II, John Chryssavgis, and many others have demonstrated, there is a very prominent 'green streak' in traditional Christianity, both East and West, which is starting to resurface after many years of being buried by a modernist, commercially and industrially tainted version of the Christian's relationship to the creation.

Why is this issue so politicized? Can't Christians and environmentalists agree that we need to be better stewards of this earth? In my community, we are focusing on local issues: out polluted river, trash and recycling, local agriculture. People are more compelled to aid their own community than they are moved to act for some nebulous political thing we call "Global Warming. "

Besides, it sure feels unfair that I need to restrict my showers and recycle everything that comes into my house when corporations and schools don't even recycle paper. What dent does it make that I don't drive to work when our city is based on an economy of people who work in Washington DC and drive fifty miles each way every day?

I don't do it because of global warming, I do what I do because I believe that we were mandated by God to take care of the gifts we've been given. This is a more compelling reason, in my opinion.

Rod: "[I]s the scientific consensus on climate change really all that unsound? Really?..."

Your use of the word "consensus" answers your own question. There is a preponderance of opinion on climate change, but not uniformity, and even less certainty.

I find the climate change skeptics to be the better scientists. The skeptics neither advocate for or against the notion of man-made climate change. They are skeptical of the scientific claims of evidence.

If a hypothesis has any scientific relevance, it must be refutable. There is good basis to be skeptical of the "scientific" conclusions of what is actually historical research. There is no means to refute the hypothesis. There is no option for a negative or positive control. There is only a single planet Earth, there is only a single history (which in this case is past), there can be no directly attributable cause-effect correlation, etc. Without the ability to refute and reproducibly test a hypothesis, the conclusion of such research should always be treated with skepticism. As history cannot be reproduced, the deductive ability of science to actually establish cause-effect is compromised. It is important to admit to the limitations of scientific inquiry, even when one is personally convinced of the truth of a phenomena.

The push for biofuels is raping many previously undisturbed land.

Biofuels, particularly corn-based ethanol, are net losers. I'm finding that most of the 'serious' environmental types discredited most biofuels some time ago. Biofuels' biggest booster is now Bush and his bandwagon.

I KNEW that there was a reason I like this Pope. Global warming may or may not be a lot of hoohah (personally I hope that it is warming and want it to warm faster because I hate winter) but the blather about it certainly is.

Here is the relevant portion of the Pope's speech:

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.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

"Teilhard de Chardin was a virtual outcast"

The problem that the Vatican had with Teilhard was not so much with his science, but with the theology and philosophy stemming from it. B16 is taking a similar approach to global warming and radical enviromentalism, as one would expect from a philosopher and theologian.

M_David
When most people speak of the consensus on climate change, they are referring to the IPCC Working Groups. My point is that the IPCC assessments do not contain the apocalyptic projections that the media routinely report. There's no way for most of the public to know this. Data illiterate school teachers are telling students every day that we are doomed because of climate change, just like data illiterate teachers in the 1970's told me we were doomed because of the population explosion. Any science that relies heavily on statistical analysis is highly susceptible to information cascades and it can sometimes take decades to begin to sort it out. (Read Taubes new work on human nutritional science for just one example.)

And yes, consensus is not science. Anyone who says "The debate is over" as Gore famously did doesn't understand how science works. Any hypothesis that hasn't been falsified is open to debate. That's how we learn.

the Vatican expressing grave skepticism about global warming comes across as a slow-motion wish for the Rapture a la Tim LaHaye's.

A pathetic UK media report leads to an even more pathetic thread.

Neither the Pope nor the Vatican is expressing ANY skepticism about global warming. Nor does the speech offer any opinions about science (as the Church, contrary to the belief widespread in certain circles, never does).

The entire speech is easily read online at Vatican.va. It's principal theme is the relationship between the family and world peace. The environmental section focuses on the need to devise policies that are both scientifically sound and have a just impact, so that their burden is not borne disproportionately by the poor. The speech does not even mention "climate change" or "global warming" and it certainly doesn't "denounce" anyone.

Like 90% of UK-based reporting about the Catholic Church and the Pope, the Daily Mail article is a work of pure fiction. Embarassing to the press.

But telling that so many of the folks here and elsewhere for whom the term "Manning's Corrolary" was coined didn't bother to check out what Pope Benedict actually said but immediately jumped on this bogus report to spout the usual ignorance about Galileo and the Church's supposed track record with regard to science.

Marian
Whether it was bad for the planet was not the point. My grade school teachers consistently warned us of dire consequences from population growth. One 4th grade teacher told my class that billions of people, including many of us, were going to die of starvation before the year 2000 because of population growth. Another teacher told us that the images we saw of famine in Ethiopia were what we would see in America as adults because of population growth.

By the time I reached high school in the 1980's I had teachers who were certain that HIV was the new black death and maybe half of Americans would have AIDS or have died from it by the late 1990's. These teachers, all of them, were spouting their own shallow superficial understanding of pop-science reporting.

Right now we have teachers all across the country telling their classrooms that we are facing imminent mass extinctions, widespread famine and vector diseases, and the disappearance of our coastal cities and states because of climate change. One of them is even a close relative who is certain we are facing catastrophe.

Since when is scaring the hell out of children a "crunchy" value?

The Pope is telling people to be rational. One can both believe in global warming affected by man and yet believe that aboslutely no solution offered by Al Gore and other hysterical environmentalists is worth doing. Here's Freeman Dyson:
The point of this calculation is the very favorable rate of exchange between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in the soil. To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Once again, for everyone debating why the Pope is right or wrong to denounce "Climate Change Prophets of Doom", please note that the Pope's speech does not even mention climate change much less the current scientific consensus on it.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

In some ways we are living through similar polemical and theological events of the past. Embryonic stem cell research and the global warming question are the modern issues on the table instead of the Copernican-Galilean heliocentric theory. And the issues descend into one line cliches just like in the past.

People will say or write stuff like "people opposed to embryonic stem cell research need to know the earth is round and not flat" or such rot.

The Galileo case is quite similar to the question of global warming. Galileo did not prove the sun was the center of the "universe" (solar system) he persistantly said and wrote about his theory in the wrong fashion and way without enough explicit proof. He also wrote in a fashion that included a theological thesis here in a time when the world was turned upside down. Others later proved him essentially right.

The Global Warming thing is the same. I say it may be true, but GIVE ME MORE EVIDENSE! More Evidence of both global warming and the cause. Pope Benedict seems to be suggesting the same thing. More evidence before we can absolutely discern this.

Peace

Speaking of "balance," "prudence," and not leaping to "hasty conclusions," I say let's wait until we see some reporting from a real paper (not a tabloid) before before we try to judge what Pope Benedict is trying to say. Most of the comments about "scare-mongering," "doom," etc., are not Benedict's, but the alleged journalist's.

Good point, Kit. But I would add that there's really no need to wait for what a real newspaper will say about it (since papers like the NY Times also have an astounding record of distorting papal remarks). The speech is up right now on the vatican.va website, and it's a fairly easy read. The Pope does not even mention global warming or climate change. The entire Daily Mail story is a sham.

Thanks, Simon. For those interested in looking into the science of climate change, hundreds -- probably thousands -- of papers were presented on the subject at the recent American Geophysical Union conference last week. A few highlights:

Expansion of the Hadley Cell Under Global Warming:

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?language=English&verbose=0&listenv=table&application=fm06&convert=&converthl=&refinequery=&formintern=&formextern=&transquery=gc%20and%20sc%3dgc&_lines=&multiple=0&descriptor=%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c284%7c3444%7cExpansion%20of%20the%20Hadley%20cell%20under%20global%20warming:%20A%20likely%20new%20driver%20for%20droughts%7cHTML%7clocalhost:0%7c%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c13931627%2013935071%20%2fdata2%2fepubs%2fwais%2fdata%2ffm06%2ffm06.txt

Projections of Novel and Disappearing Climates by 2100AD

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?language=English&verbose=0&listenv=table&application=fm06&convert=&converthl=&refinequery=&formintern=&formextern=&transquery=gc%20and%20sc%3dgc&_lines=&multiple=0&descriptor=%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c276%7c3274%7cProjected%20Distributions%20of%20Novel%20and%20Disappearing%20Climates%20by%202100AD%7cHTML%7clocalhost:0%7c%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c14036798%2014040072%20%2fdata2%2fepubs%2fwais%2fdata%2ffm06%2ffm06.txt

Paleoclimactic Perspecives on Climate Change

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?language=English&verbose=0&listenv=table&application=fm06&convert=&converthl=&refinequery=&formintern=&formextern=&transquery=gc%20and%20sc%3dgc&_lines=&multiple=0&descriptor=%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c278%7c3329%7cPaleoclimatic%20Perspectives%20on%20Climate%20Sensitivity%20to%20Carbon%20Dioxide%7cHTML%7clocalhost:0%7c%2fdata%2fepubs%2fwais%2findexes%2ffm06%2ffm06%7c13637753%2013641082%20%2fdata2%2fepubs%2fwais%2fdata%2ffm06%2ffm06.txt

The keynote address was given by the great Ohio State researcher Lonnie Thompson. His talk is available as a webcast, but his conclusion is worth noting. To paraphrase, he said that as early as the l960's, we had excellent science on the Cuyahoga River, showing that fish were dying en masse, that the water was unsafe to drink, that dangerous compounds were accumulating, etc. What did we as a society do?

Nothing -- until the river caught fire. Then we acted, and now walleyed pike and other fish species have returned to the river, which is safe for boating and recreation. I understand that Ohio is very proud of its restored river, and deservedly so.

Now, Thompson asks, what will it take before we as a species act on climate change? His guess: twin Category 5 hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast.

Sounds about right to me. The problem, of course, is that it's far more difficult to heal a global climate than it is to heal a river.

Caught up with the story. The river had caught fire many times before, that's a fact, but nonetheless the Cuyahoga was one of the most polluted rivers in the country, and the incident did contain "useful truths" that came to symbolize an era in American pollution. And Lonnie Thompson is indeed a greatly admired and worthy scientist, which you will see if you read a book about his ground-breaking work at high altitude, "Thin Ice." Thompson has been based at Ohio State since the l970's.