Pope Francis Demands Immediate Action to Halt Global Warming, Save Environment

[Maze1125]

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects

No they do, because if they are not accurate - then they can give us wrong trends.

Yes, they can.
Which is why I can tell you didn't even bother to read the article, because as it says very clearly on there, the models haven't been giving us the right trends, in fact they've been notably UNDERestimating the human effects of global warming.

The models are too conservative. The human influenced part of global warming is worse than it was expected to be.

Anyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE

 

[Maze1125]

Acting "just in case" without knowledge is anti-scientific by very nature, it can only lead to said action contributing to the disaster.

That sentence makes literally no sense.
How can you claim to be neutral and then say "If we act without knowing 100%" (a thing that is impossible from a scientific perspective and a completely unreasonable demand) "then the only possible outcome is that things will get worse."
That's not neutral, that's nonsense hyperbole. You claim we have to know things for certain, then write something that has no evidence at all with complete certainty.

As soon as someone starts to be that self-contradictory it becomes clear there is no point arguing with them.

 

[Something Amyss]

And in other news, the pope finally got out of bed to realise that people have been living lives without him.

We're still having to wait for his holiness to declare CFCs causes degradation to the ozone layer. More news later when actual scientists are making the discoveries.

Unfortunately, the collective scientific knowledge of humankind may mean less to a lot of people than a guy in a funny hat. And also unfortunately, with a following the size of Catholicism, we might actually need him sounding off.

On the other hand, I don't feel like giving His Holiness a cookie for stating the obvious and doing the right thing.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Reading the comments I find it interesting that some people criticize the Pope for speaking on a topic of science, saying he should leave science to scientists or that a man of religion is not able to be a man of reason at the same time (remember, Descartes, father of modern mathematics and philosophy, was a Christian), even though Pope Francis actually has scientific education in chemistry.
I wonder how many of you have any education on the topic of religion, as the consensus seems to be "thou shall not speak of a topic you do not know jack shit about". And no, having a religious grandma and flipping off Jehova's witnesses does not count.

Anyway, OT: Good on the old guy. I've known for some time that he's a science fan, but such a public gesture of support is a step in good direction. Hopefully some of the stubborn conservatives will follow suit.

Eh, the entire "Global Warming" issue is mostly a song and dance. You certainly have some of the masses on the ground in the conservative parties that are skeptical of global warming because they've been told to be, but most of the elite and decision makers are absolutely not skeptical about it. What it comes down to is an essential trade off of economic prosperity vs. potential harm to the environment. Think of it as a big game of chicken, some people are merely betting that everyone else will budge and that they won't have to so they'll reap both economic and environmental benefits while everyone else foots the bill.

I can almost guarantee you that once China's power consumption and pollution massively outstrips the west, then suddenly this will become a big issue that Conservatives will get behind since it will be a way for them to bludgeon the Chinese economy. Just brace yourself for the whiplash of a series of political leaders suddenly "seeing the light" on this topic.

 

[Strazdas]

And Francis continues to be the best pope in a long time. When he got elected i said that this might be the pope that actually changes things for the better. and in many cases, he has been. Even though i am no longer a religiuos person, i have respect for that man.

George Carlin must have overlooked the fact that we are not the only species living on this rock. And the environment is mostly made up of those species. Even if our own fate wasn't something we should be concerned about - and since we aren't consciously suicidal as a species, it is - climate change is still having a destructive effect on the environment.

We are not the only species living on this rock, but we are the only species we care about. we will hunt others into extionction if it servers to benefit us, humans. we already have.

Other species is not a limit of "enviroment". a planet covered entirely in lava still has an enviroment. not one any life as we know it can live on, but its still enviroment. We are not destroying enviroment. we are changing it.

And in other news, the pope finally got out of bed to realise that people have been living lives without him.

Give the man some credit, hes trying to bring the church forward from middle ages in what seems singlehanded effort. Cant expect him solo whole church up to date in a year.

 

[TallanKhan]

Snip

Actually anthropologist are beginning to say that they believe the reason people began to settle was not farming and agriculture but worship. They built complicated (For the time) shrines and didn't want to leave the shrines abandoned. There was a piece in national geographic about it.

At least, that's what the archaeological evidence is starting to show in parts of the middle east.

Anyone who's actually studied history academically, by the way, would disagree with you. The influence of religion on European/middle eastern history is tremendous. You cannot study history in the west without studying various religions, because the impact is so utter.

And while it is true that civilizations formed prior to the 'big three' in the west, they all had fairly strong religious natures; almost every, if not every, civilization that arose prior to the big three had divine monarchs. All the fertile crescent ones, and the Egyptians. That includes the Romans prior to the establishment of the republic, and the Emperor was deified not long after the republics fall.

I haven't read the piece you're referring to so can't deny what you are saying. I did read a study a couple of years back which sounds similar, but that was specifically regarding why, of the nomadic peoples of the middle-east, why some remained nomadic but others built settlements despite similar circumstances (seasonal availability of food etc.). That study concluded that worship and water were likely the two driving factors, but didn't imply this was a global trend and I haven't seen anything since.

By the way, I have studied history, and if you read my original post you will see that I didn't at any point claim that religion hasn't had a huge influence. My overriding point was that religion has on balance been a hugely negative influence, particularly in terms of holding back human development.

I agree with you regarding your last point, broadly. Religion has always been there, but my point was that it hasn't been the driving force, rather, it has continuously re-purposed itself to fit a changing world. Tribes had tribal gods, they worshipped natural formations and places they considered sacred, it was "local" religion. As nations formed, like Egypt, Greece, etc. pantheons of "national" deities were born -usually a blending of a number of influences- representing an entire united people. Now it is difficult to specifically identify cause and effect here without records, however, the next stage we can. Later, we saw the emergence of the Roman Empire, the first truly "global" entity, connecting different people in different lands over thousands of miles, and it was after this happened that we saw the emergence of Christianity, the first global religion, the first that wasn't constrained by geography or ethnicity.

Religion has always been a control mechanism, and it has been adapted and re-purposed time and time again in response to the development of civilisation.

 

[catalyst8]

Jeez, with lobbyists like these... If I were a government, I wouldn't need a thousand corporations filling my pockets to tell environmentalists to sod off.

How about a 97% scientific consensus, or scientific evidence that suggests our behaviour as a species & our disregard for for the environment has launched a mass extinction event?

If you actually gave a chance to the thought that guy in a funny hat has such following for a reason - and that reason being something other than "people are extremely dumb" - you would have a lot easier time understanding the hows and whys of the world around you.

Are you suggesting that there's actual evidence to support the Abrahamic myth, & that by far the mass of its followers (regardless of whether the Judaic or Mohammedan sects, or the Christian cult) aren't adherents due to indoctrination, & frequently involuntary indoctrination at that? If there is such evidence then I'd very much like to see it, would you cite it if it exists please?

As for your "other than 'people are extremely dumb'" remark; "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious[...]". Paul Bell, MENSA Magazine 2002 regarding 43 studies examining correlations between high IQ, good education, & little or no religious belief.

 

[catalyst8]

Now only if you could actually read your own link. And my posts. And think what exactly I meant in that specific quote.

Then you must elucidate; I pointed out an overwhelming scientific consensus which, if you 'were a government' shouldn't require a second's thought to realise there's a problem.

NO. I am suggesting that people with strong religious beliefs might actually have very good, logical and understandable reasons for having said beliefs. The reasons any atheists can easily hear if only he stops going all Bolshevik on them.

There's nothing revolutionary or subversive about asking for evidence in support of a claim. It's the staple of critical thinking, the scientific method, & even simple debate. So do you have any evidence for your claim or not?

indoctrination

Ooooh. We're going that way.

The way of language, yes. The definition for indoctrination is 'Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically' (OED) which is exactly what the Abrahamic religion does, the dogma itself insists that it's derived from unquestionable authority. Something you even stumble into when you say

EDUCATED people are a lot less likely to be religious, because education gives a lot of opportunities for choosing ideology and morality to people who previously lacked such a choice and got into a religion purely by association. [my emphasis] This in no way contradicts my point, because I suggested that the religious people might have their own reasons to be religious, not that EVERYONE should be religious. And if you consider IQ an accurate representation of one's intelligence than it's just very sad.

Yes, education & intelligence have a demonstrated tendency to make individuals question undemonstrated claims, it's one of the basic facets of critical thinking. The meta-analysis I cited was, as I said, a review of over 40 independently conducted & verified studies, all peer reviewed.

Speaking of which, I've demonstrated my claims with evidence, would you care to do the same or do you still refuse to?

 

[catalyst8]

Everyone who was not dropped on his head in early childhood realizes that there's a problem. I never disagreed with that. I strongly suggest re-reading my posts, that's kinda the reason they are there - to be read. With eyes.

There's really no need to resort to offensive remarks although I'd already noticed that it hasn't stopped you in your previous comments to others, but by doing so you're actually detracting from your own argument. The comment I replied to, the one I quoted was

Jeez, with lobbyists like these... If I were a government, I wouldn't need a thousand corporations filling my pockets to tell environmentalists to sod off.

I pointed out that the overwhelming scientific consensus supports the findings that climate change is essentially a man-made problem. The context of your post posits wishful thinking, arguably hubris, over evidence.

What claim? That Moses indeed parted the Red Sea? Or that Yeshua Ha-Nozri came back from the dead? I don't remember claiming any of that. You should probably scroll up to my post, get really-really close to your monitor and stare at my words until you find the enlightenment.

And I'm an atheist FFS. Get of that high horse, Mr. I'm Smarter Than This Brainwashed Humanity.

Yet again, being so offensive only works to the detriment of your own argument. Your statement was

I am suggesting that people with strong religious beliefs might actually have very good, logical and understandable reasons for having said beliefs.

Bearing in mind that logical means the quality of being justifiable by reason, specifically the systematic determination of forms of valid deductive argument, then what's the evidence that following the Abrahamic religion is logical? I'm simply asking you to substantiate your claim, would you do that, please?

Have you ever been exposed to actions of Catholic religious figures to claim that indoctrination is what they are doing? Or that participation in religious activities or simply following of a religion require suppression of one's capabilities for critical thinking?

Oh, and please - don't drag the American TV preachers here. Your original claim about indoctrination concerned the Catholicism.

My reference to indoctrination didn't specifically refer to Catholicism alone but, as I pointed out, to the whole Abrahamic religion. I even cited the definition of the word, a definition you seemingly accidentally agreed with in a subsequent answer as I already pointed out. Perhaps you might consider following your own advice about reading posts.

what kind evidence should I present you? Evidence of IQ being a very imperfect tool of determining one's intelligence? Or evidence of people having reasons to exercise their right for freedom of religious beliefs?

No, as I've repeatedly requested just evidence to support your numerous claims. If you could do that without resorting to any more offensive comments that would be much appreciated, thank you.

 

[Morti]

Even if you're skeptical, it makes sense to do something since there are four possible outcomes (in brief):

We are causing it and we do something about it: Crisis averted, hopefully...
We are causing it and we do nothing: If we're not fucked then our children are.
We are not causing it and we do something: Cleaner, more economical, cities mean people can live longer, happier lives.
We are not causing it and we do nothing: Corporations continue to ravage the planet of the resources that are indisputably depleting. We live a life of decadence, but our grand children are fucked.

So... doing something results in largely positive results regardless of why climate change is happening. Doing nothing results in largely negative results regardless of why climate change is happening.

 

[catalyst8]

Bearing in mind that logical means the quality of being justifiable by reason

Not exactly.
"log·i·cal - of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument; characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning; natural or sensible given the circumstances;"

Having beliefs that are illustrated by parables that have supernatural elements in them is in no way illogical by nature. Aristotle was a believer of the Greek Pantheon and dedicated a lot of discussion and study to the concept of God, yet somehow managed to be not the most illogical person, kinda being the first to formalize logic instead.
[I haven't cited the subsequent condescending paragraphs]

It looks like we're citing the same source for the definition i.e. the dictionary, but you cut mine short (I said "the quality of being justifiable by reason, specifically the systematic determination of forms of valid deductive argument") & you did the same to yours too. For argument's sake I'll assume that it's pure accident that you didn't cite the full definition simply because it contradicts your argument, so let's try again with the function of the full definition.
Your assertion that the existence of the supernatural, in this instance the reliance on the unquestionable validity of the Abrahamic myth, as a logical belief actually contradicts the definition itself: specifically 'forms of valid deductive argument'. Saying that Arsitotle was superstitious, therefore superstition is logical, is neither deductive nor logical reasoning since it accepts a priori that supernatural element which has no substantiation whatsoever. That's exactly the reason the Cartesian Cogito is flawed; it accepts a priori the existence of the Abrahamic God upon which to base it's foundation, but never once questions the validity of the initial assumption. As a piece of writing Descartes' A Discourse on Method Meditations & Principles is truly beautiful, & the logical procedures it describes are ingenious, none the less the Cogito itself is a flawed conclusion because it accepts something as true with no more substantiation than 'because the Bible says so'.

My reference to indoctrination didn't specifically refer to Catholicism alone

Then you are derailing the argument. No other Abrahamic religion or sect has a man in a fancy hat appointed as it's sole top figure, who has huge following all over the world and raises awareness about climate change.

It's a bit late to be calling 'foul' now, but OK, I'll play along.
As initially & subsequently stated, my use of the term indoctrination was regarding

the mass of its [Abrahamic religion] followers (regardless of whether the Judaic or Mohammedan sects, or the Christian cult)

Indoctrination is indoctrination regardless of whether it's 'a fancy hat' as you put it, or whatever other costume's worn. The Abrahamic religion, regardless of which specific subset, relies on teaching people to accept a set of beliefs laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. By simple definition of the terms that's dogmatic indoctrination.

No, as I've repeatedly requested just evidence to support your numerous claims

And I repeatedly asked - the evidence for what exact claims do you desire? Because I'm rather baffled by one's either lack of common sense, or his common sense having nothing in common with mine common sense. Which means that limits of obvious are not defined for us two.

Your claims that belief in superstition (i.e. belief in & reverence for the supernatural) is logical, & that the Abrahamic religion doesn't use indoctrination. And once again I request that you avoid being offensive.

 

[catalyst8]

assertion that the existence of the supernatural, in this instance the reliance on the unquestionable validity of the Abrahamic myth, as a logical belief

Aaaaah. Well, you should have said that you don't understand how religion works from the start.

Again you deliberately avoid the point in order to make a condescending comment unrelated to the matter, & yet again that only goes to illustrate your refusal to engage with the subject. I've asked you three times now, I won't ask you again to be civil.

Saying that Arsitotle was superstitious, therefore superstition is logical

First - having religious beliefs and being superstitious are two very different things.

Actually no, they aren't. I've been using the definition of superstition & you don't seem to have understood that, you even quoted it right back at me as a description of religion in the first section of this post. The definition of superstition is 'belief in & reverence of the supernatural', & religion by definition falls into that category.
Also you use non-sequiturs & sophistry to try to escape claims you've previously made, like

"log·i·cal - of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument; characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning; natural or sensible given the circumstances;" Aristotle was a believer of the Greek Pantheon and dedicated a lot of discussion and study to the concept of God, yet somehow managed to be not the most illogical person, kinda being the first to formalize logic instead.

is a direct implication (using an inductive logical fallacy) that if Aristotle was superstitious then superstition, in this instance in the form of religion, is not illogical &, again by inductive logical fallacy, that it is therefore logical. Then you immediately claim that wasn't your intention.
Once more I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however, & ask you to clarify:
Are you now admitting that superstition, in this instance the belief in & reverence of a supernatural god or gods, isn't logical?

Indoctrination is 'The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.' In order for it not to be indoctrination then not only must the 'holy texts' of the Tanakh, Bible, & Qur'an not be claimed to be divinely inspired, the god they claim to have inspired their text cannot be claimed to be all powerful, yet each of the three main dogmas of the Abrahamic religion categorically claim that this is the case e.g. the Creation Myth describes an omnipotent god; the Moses character is claimed to have conversed with that god.
In order for you to state that this religion doesn't use indoctrination then you must by necessity state that it doesn't make these claims. So which is it, do they claim an all-powerful god that inspired their 'holy text' or don't they?