back to article Climate change alarmism is a religious belief – it's official

So there you have it. The climate debate is over. Or it is, provided you accept that the highest authority of the human race is Pope Francis. The long-awaited papal encyclical "Laudato Si" is now officially published, and it says pretty much what it had been expected to say. Planet Earth is described as "like a sister with …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. wolfetone Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    I'm not totally clear on what side of the fence the writer is on?

    1. Graham Marsden

      Look at Lewis' previous rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer...

      1. Indolent Wretch

        possible "vomits" was the word you were looking for

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Spittle-flecked invective?

      2. Thought About IT

        "Look at Lewis' previous rants diatribes tirades articles on the subject and it may become a little clearer..."

        Judging by the downvotes, even that simple statement of fact is contentious in this context. Those who downvoted should ask themselves if any evidence would convince them that humans are changing the climate due to their greenhouse gas emissions.

        1. Chris Miller

          "ask themselves if any evidence would convince them that humans are changing the climate due to their greenhouse gas emissions"

          If you'd bothered to read any of Lewis's previous, you'd have noticed that (unsurprisingly for a Cambridge science graduate) he never suggests that emitting sufficient quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has no potential to affect the climate. The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it", and it's on these topics that reasonable discussion ought to be possible, if you could just stop erecting straw men for long enough.

          Thanks in advance.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            In other words, "When to act"

            "The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it"

            The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

            The debate, from anyone that understands the theory of climate science, should be the idea of climate inertia - any alternation in behaviors regarding the climate will take years, if not decades, to aggregate with enough effect to appear to have an measurable difference.

            Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the deniers, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to take a position of asking 'how much' is necessary to create a dangerous situation once the understanding of climate inertia is added into the equation. The point of those supporting change is that, thanks to climate inertia, any change from this point forward will take years to manifest.

            Lewis' constant stand IS surprising for "a Cambridge science graduate" if the concept of results within maintainable boundaries is accounted for; waiting until the last minutes for the climate experiments to reach an undeniable conclusion is simply waiting for disaster. Any action from that late point will have no effect as the system's inertia will continue to swing the pendulum even more into the danger zone, and past, before any changes made will have the hoped-for, system-wide effect. All we'll be left with is picking up the pieces of desolation rather than fixing the problem...because the system would have already gone "Boom!"

            But that's OK. I have come to understand the major issue of the problem, and it isn't the emissions, the ecology, the atmosphere, the plants, the animals or our energy use: the problem is people. People are more worried about being personally inconvenienced - having to make personal sacrifices - than they are worried about what is in their future. If racking up tens of thousands of pounds / dollars in debt today, because they are unconcerned about tomorrow's dues, if participating in health-injuring or known dangerous / poisonous activities like smoking or excessive drinking is common in today's society, then why should we expect any more foresight in regards to the world that they live in? The solution here is not climate science, the solution required is social science: the ability of homo sapiens to take personal responsibility, even if uncomfortable, to understand foreseeable outcomes and say "Yes, I can stop being the center of the world and change a bit for everyone else's sake".

            Maybe one day...

            1. getHandle

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              No, we're worried about being inconvenienced, making sacrifices, paying a damn sight more money, for no fucking difference what-so-ever. We're not all hair-shirt wearing, guardian readers you know.

              1. Snake

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "No, we're worried about being inconvenienced, making sacrifices, paying a damn sight more money, for no fucking difference what-so-ever. We're not all hair-shirt wearing, guardian readers you know."

                So. Better to do nothing at all, and save MONEY, than try..

                Good to know what the average reader around here is more worried about. Selfish greedy bastards.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "

              "The obvious questions that then arise are "how much" and "what should we do about it"

              The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

              "

              Argument by assertion is never very convincing. Sure the climate is changing - it always has AFAICS since before there was any life at all on the planet. If you believe that the stuff that is living on the planet should not do anything that may change the climate, I guess you want to revert back to the sort of atmosphere and climate that existed before there was any life. Which would of course quickly ensure that the planet once again becomes lifeless.

              It really does not matter what is causing the climate to change - the only thing we need be concerned about is what effect the change is likely to have and over what time period, and what is the best way to cope with the expected change. Personally I believe that we will cope a lot better if we carry on advancing our technology, and that reverting back to the stone-age in order to stop doing whatever might be causing the change would be very foolish and unlikely to result in a very satisfactory outcome for humanity.

            3. h4rm0ny

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              >>"Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the denies"

              Someone points out a strawman and rather than acknowledge it, you just up the ante with another one. Being a skeptic of AGW doesn't mean one thinks the climate never changes, it means one is not yet convinced that the primary factor is human-caused CO₂.

              1. ian 22

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                Who to trust in regards to AGW? Scientist, the majority of whom (in many disciplines) say that it is happening? Or right-wing politicians and plutocrats. Hmm. So hard to decide...

                Then the Pope steps in and says it is a moral issue, and a (at least one) right-wing politico (American, Republican, presidential-candidate-of-the-week, Roman Catholic, not naming names) tells the Pope to sod off and to tend to his (religious) knitting. This in spite of RC theology stating papal inerrancy in matters theological. If the Pope states an issue is a religious one, then he is inerrant, and the pol is either a schismatic or a heretic. I'm waiting with bated breath to see which Santorum is.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  RC theology states that papal inerrancy (more usually referred to as infallibility) is only when a statement is declared as being made "ex cathedra". I don't think that encyclicals are by default ex cathedra.

                  Mind you, infallibility was only formally declared in 1870, so what makes us think /that/ was definitely right!? (admittedly there is an argument that dates back 2000ish years)

                2. launcap Silver badge
                  Stop

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  > This in spite of RC theology stating papal inerrancy in matters theological

                  Only when speaking 'ex-cathedra' - which this isn't.

                  (Not a Catholic, being of a decidedly non-conformist Protestant mindset)

                3. Dan Paul

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  There have been PLENTY of leftwing Demoncrat Catholic politicians that have disagreed with the Pope about the abortion issue. That is definitely against the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

                  Let's consider the whole Cuomo family as persona non grata with the teachings of Catholicism as well as most Catholic politicians even many Republicans since they support something against church dogma. As you are trying to say, you can't have it both ways.

                  As far as I am concerned once a religion get political, they should lose their right to tax exempt status.

                  We can't trust most so called "scientists" on the AGW front because of the "groupthink or else" mindset they have. There is no room for discussions on the subject with them. They have OBVIOUSLY adjusted the climate numbers numerous times to fit their argument. Once they did that, everything they say must be considered a lie and you can't trust a liar.

                  1. cortland

                    Re: In other words, "When to act"

                    “When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”

                    http://www.inspirationalstories.com/quotes/t/roger-williams-on-christianity/

                    Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

                    Note that moral considerations should lead anyone who means to do good to err on the side of charity, not profitability, and in the matter of AGW, on the side of caution, not commercial gain.

                4. tk666

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  Seems to me it has always been a moral issue looking for a scientific justification..... Not the first time this has happened. The major issue I see is that most consequences are unintended and unpredictable except in the simplest systems.

                5. Jaybus

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  Who to trust in regards to AGW? Scientist, the majority of whom (in many disciplines) say that it is happening? Or right-wing politicians and plutocrats. Hmm. So hard to decide.

                  Indeed. One need only read back through the last decade or so of scientific literature to realize that most hypothesis are eventually proven incorrect. Likewise, history shows politicians, right, left, or in the middle, making mostly false assumptions, if not simply self-serving and fraudulent. So, yes, it is hard to decide.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                CO₂ is really great for the plants... Don't we have a bit of a problem feeding everyone? The biggest threats to this planet are over-population and rampant religion. Sadly, there's little we can do about either, since 98% of humanity is either under-educated or just stupid.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: In other words, "When to act"

                  +1 on 2 of 3. On the other, it seems wheat doesn't care for the high CO2 regime. Sadly for us bread and Wheaties consumers.

            4. JustWondering

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent,"

              Readily apparent where I live. If not for climate change, my current location would be under a couple of miles of ice. It is no surprise that our climate changes; what is surprising is people that think they can get it to stay the same. Meanwhile, we are about one big volcano away from burning spotted owls for heat.

              I'm not against taking care of the planet. But to imagine we will bend nature to our will is ridiculous.

            5. toughluck

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              "The debate, from anyone that understands the theory of climate science, should be the idea of climate inertia - any alternation in behaviors regarding the climate will take years, if not decades, to aggregate with enough effect to appear to have an measurable difference."

              And yet CO2 concentration growth from 80s to today are charted along with average temperature increase over the same time (with axes specifically ranged for the two lines to match). Or, how CO2 concentration is charted from mid-19th century along with a steady temperature increase.

            6. nijam

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              > The answers, therefore, are in order: "already too much" and "as much as we can".

              And there, in a single sentence, is all the evidence for AGW you will get.

            7. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              to all those demanding throwing the babies out with the bathwater, I say "you first".

              when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid.

              But all those screaming loudly that our tiny third-order contribution is the most critical thing evar, are those using the most. Buying a Tesla to offset the Expedition you were driving for a decade, while you still have the Maserati in the garage for "non commuting purposes" and the wife still drives the Lexus with the V8, having your three children and downsizing your mansion after feeling guilty and now claiming some sort of green sainthood, buying 100K of solar panels with the profit from selling the house, is still hypocritical to the extreme.

              All I hear are two loud voices: the Had It/Have Its, and the Never Will Have Its. And a third of "government gonna pay ME for my unwanted product they're gonna make mandatory and the subsidies will put me firmly into the Have Its with the latest gadgets to 'reduce' my impact down to only twice what most people in the world are using".

              1. Roger Gann

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid."

                No. Completely untrue - see this USGS page: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

                I quote:

                "The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

                In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

                There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions."

                I think I can tell who's being stupid here.

              2. Cavanuk

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                "when all of humanity's emissions for decades is outdone by a single volcano in a week, tanking the income of a thousand families is stupid."

                Completely wrong. The global CO2 production of all volcanoes, in one year, is around 200 million tonnes of CO2. Human production of CO2 is around 30 billion tonnes a year.

                Volcanic eruptions are negligible compared to human CO2 production.

            8. NumptyScrub

              Re: In other words, "When to act"

              Since some form of worldwide climate change is now apparent, even to the deniers, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to take a position of asking 'how much' is necessary to create a dangerous situation once the understanding of climate inertia is added into the equation. The point of those supporting change is that, thanks to climate inertia, any change from this point forward will take years to manifest.

              Funnily enough, some form of worldwide climate change has been apparent for as far as we try to look back (linked from this article). Apparently the last 200 million years has been, on average, warmer than it is now, with only the last 3 million or so going colder (than now) and then warming back up again.

              We're definitely getting warmer, both short term an on a longer scale, however we are apparently still at the "bastard cold" end of the scale as far as the planet is concerned, taking the last 500 million years in context. No doubt there is an anthropogenic contribution to change in climate, but I would suggest that the main point to be taken on board is not that we might be adversely affecting any "natural" temperature cycle (with all the blamestorming that that engenders), but that we should be focusing on dealing with the effects of the observed changes.

              Maybe it's time people got reminded that you become the dominant species by adapting to the prevalent conditions, not by demanding that the conditions be changed to suit you. 50 million years ago the planet was apparently 14C hotter as a global average, if it can get that hot without humans being involved at all, then anthropogenic emissions are obviously not the sole driver for climate change. If current temperatures are toward the bottom of the observed range for the planet, then we need to plan for it to get hotter regardless of what we do or do not do as a species.

              Telling people to stop driving cars and it will all get better is not the correct response to the situation. The correct response is to design and create solutions to allow humans to continue to live on a ball of rock that fluctuates between 6C colder and 14C hotter than the current global mean temperature. Anything else is blamestorming and displacement activity ;)

              1. Cavanuk

                Re: In other words, "When to act"

                Your arguments are unscientific. You are arguing that, because there was one cause in the past, the same is true now. Not so. People died long before cars were invented. That does not mean that cars do not kill people.

                There is no detectable natural cause for the current warming. Simply saying that it did in the past and so it just does, is irrational. Solar activity, the arrangement of the continents, the area of space that the solar system is passing through, all have an impact on the temperature. None of those things is relevant at the moment. The sun is actually in a relatively cool phase, we have a lot of land toward the poles - allowing the formation of highly reflective ice and snow surfaces and there is no indication that we are passing through a particularly dusty region of space. What we are doing is pouring billions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We know the physical mechanisms by which CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.

                So, there is no evidence of any natural reason at all for the currently observed warming and we know that we are filling the atmosphere with a heating agent. The logical conclusion is that we are the prime drivers of current warming.

                It matters because we are warming the planet faster than it has warmed in the past and our presence also restricts the ability of other living things to migrate to different environments. The effects on other living things will be drastic but they will also be terrible for humans. Much of the world is already too arid to grow crops. If heat and evaporation rates rise then many will suffer as crops fail and fresh water runs out.

          2. jrwc

            Honest discussions are over. AGW True Believers offer no margin of error. Many would like deniers just to be tried and hung by the neck until dead. Such shrillness evokes desperation and error. More threatening than Marxists. More evil than Hitler. Dumber than Biden.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              dangerous level of religious tolerance you're showing there.

              hanging those people who disagree, what, are you Catholic?

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Coat

            "if you could just stop erecting straw men for long enough."

            The big problem with all those straw men is the constituent decomposition gases. It causes AGW.

          4. GX5000

            It should be obvious at this point in time that we are made to have incorrect conversations about important issues. eg "who's at fault" instead of "what can be done". Same thing with GMO's and Vaccines....It's not about Pro or anti-vaxxers, it's about Testing and formulation, but as long as the narrative is controlled by the Corporates and the Media, we'll be arguing nonsense until it's too late. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. Cheers.

          5. Blank Reg

            There isn't even much need to argue over how much CO2 is too much. CO2 is seldom expelled all on it's lonesome. It's typically accompanied by a whole host of other nasty byproducts, none of which are doing us or the environment any good. And it's not just burning the fossil fuels, refining such fuels is not an entirely clean process.

            Reducing such pollutants and toxins should be a good enough reason to try and reduce our use of carbon based fuels.

            1. 9Rune5

              "CO2 is seldom expelled all on it's lonesome"

              Too true. It is often accompanied by horrible H2O. We should ban H2O before it is too late.

              1. Kyle_Sager

                We should ban H2O before it is too late.

                Water vapor is a "shortly-lived" greenhouse gas, cycling rapidly in and out of the atmosphere daily and highly temperature dependent. There is, however, a feedback affect by which more water vapor remains in the air due to CO2.

                Thus scientists (for example Dr. Alan Plumb at World #1-ranked MIT for environmental science) tell us without mincing words that water vapor basically doubles the impact of CO2. CO2 is the lever. CO2 accomplishes heating, and water vapor sees to it the end result is twice as bad as it could have been. Water vapor will always be here providing its natural functions. But we can stop screwing with it vis-a-vis CO2. We just have to admit the problem.

        2. Twinkle

          I remember the same attitudes with smoking and cancer. Naturally smokers did not believe it caused cancer. Cigarette companies used their considerable spending power to cloud the issue in the same way as oil companies do for climate change today http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptic-arguments-about-cigarette-smoke-sound-familiar.html

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      We don't need to do anything...

      God will save us.

      ;-)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: God will save us.

        God will save life on the planet. If we fuck up too much it'll become uninhabitable by humans but in another couple of hundred thousand years there'll be tons of life again.

        1. joesmith

          Re: God will save us.

          I haven't decided yet if I want to deal with trying to convince any of you people of anything, but your comment reminded me of a hilarious (and relevant) comic that you should all read. http://imgur.com/gallery/o79ym

      2. Col_Panek

        Re: We don't need to do anything...

        That is completely the opposite of what the encyclical said.

    3. Fluffy Cactus

      I don't know either, but my guess with regard to the pope's intention is, that he sees the following

      problem: Clearly, many people in the modern world no longer believe that e.g. sex is related to sin, or that greed is a sin, or that many religious moral imperatives that worked so well in the past to inspire fear, horror, and godawful worries about the end of the world do not work so well anymore, so what better thing is there than to jump on the bandwagon of the most "horrible, fearful and both somewhat scientifically, as well as governmentally supported threat to humankind" and throw in his lot with the amazing environmentalists.

      The environmentalists, at large, share these traits with both "ancient kings, religionists, socialists and communists": 1) They believe that they own everything. 2) They own the country, they own the sea, they own the North Pole, the South Pole, they all have a "universal appeal" and a "universal claim" upon all land, all resources, all that there exists. They, and they alone, by the strength of their fervor, of their belief, of their apostolic mission, are in charge, and if you happen to own

      a piece of land that you paid for, and that you plant crops and work on, well then, that's just too bad, because they can tax you if it rains too much ("the newly created wetland is now under their jurisdiction"), and they can tax you if you produce too much ("you are hurting the environment", or too little ("you are purposely not doing your part of feeding the world") , or if there is a drought ("you used a tractor, which spits out CO2, so you are guilty, no matter what, pay the penalty", or for any other reason they can dream up.

      Therefore "they act like ancient kings", who owned the forest, and the poor peasant, who shot a deer with bow and arrow to feed the family committed a crime against the king, and needed to pay up or be executed. This is the sole reason why the pope is now trying to be environmentally as well as religiously correct. Overall, much of mankind appears to be moving back to a mindset that is dark-age-like superstitious, hyper-emotional, pushed by belief in fearful or hateful concepts, unreasonable, unwilling and unable to consider the consequences of their actions and beliefs.

      And this, my dearly beloved friends, is my opinion, and whether you like it or not, it's the bigger picture.

      I am against this kind of thinking, not because the environment is may not need to be protected, but because of the fanatic, belief based panic, that is akin to religious madness mixed with political madness. (Other historic belief based panics in history were e.g. the middle age witch hunts, John Law's fake money schemes, the tulip bulb investment mania, the various religious "end of the world" schemes that took people's money and them for a disappointing ride, the mainly racist "eugenics schemes" between 1890 and 1925, the somewhat related half religious-half racist KKK movement in the US through 1930, the Nazi movement 1925 through 1945, the various Communist schemes between 1917 and 1989. All of these had in common that there was an overriding fear, anger, desparation and hatred factor, and a strong belief in semi-scientific ideas that later turned out to be not such a good thing, with people at the top profiting handsomely.)

      This is all easy enough to understand, but is anyone even understanding or doing anything about it?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If we want less hot air in the world...

    We should just ban all religion...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

      And all ideological politics; equally good luck with that.

      The argument about whether the poor are lazy and should be punished or the victims of circumstances and bad luck and should be helped are going on right now, and the mood from the US that has reached the UK is that the poor are lazy, and should be punished. This is a political ideology with no research basis, and it is just as toxic as religious ideas. Whether you say a God said it or Ayn Rand said it, the problem is not religion or politics per se; it's the people who appeal to authority figures.

      George Osborne controls British finances because just over 24% of the British electorate wanted him to. The pope has authority because a certain number of Catholics believes he does. Banning religion would just give even more power to the politicians. Are you really sure you want that?

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

        Your ideological politics is showing.

        Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe.

        <ideological-rant>The left believe that throwing money at things doesn't have side effects.</ideological-rant>

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

          "Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe."

          Well, I haven't been able to interview most people in the Right (note capitalisation) but a number of the ones I do know express very firmly the view that most poor people are so through laziness and the availability of benefits, but I'll grant you that in the absence of detailed surveys that's anecdotal.

          However, when the Government refuses to release under a FOIA request the number of people who died of disease within a short time of being assessed capable of returning to work - that smells of a cover up. Why wouldn't they either release the data or admit they are failing to check up on the work of ATOS?

        2. Olius

          Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

          "Most in the right don't think the poor are lazy, they just think different solutions to problems are appropriate to what the left believe.

          <ideological-rant>The left believe that throwing money at things doesn't have side effects.</ideological-rant>"

          Most people on the "right" have had 30+ years of pure right-wing dogma and are showing no signs of realising that the current state of the world is the result of it.

          Most reasonable people on the left understand the "side effects" of the solutions they propose very well. It is these side-effects that are most interesting and are the reason for the proposals.

          Unfortunately, considered (and underpinned by historical evidence) as the proposals are, the "right" are running the show and are showing no sign of wanting to try anything different in the face of failure (see point 1)

          The greatest irony as far as I can see is that we are having this debate on a "techie", "sciency" forum - yet the tone of the debate is as far away from "science" as can be - when you consider that "science" is the process of pure critical thinking and abandoning disproved hypothesis when evidence shows them to be false.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...We should just ban all religion...

        But politicians are a necessary evil, we need someone to negotiate with other countries, defend the country when required, most people want law and order, a health service and welfare state...

        Where there shouldn't be government - censorship, morality, what consenting adults can watch, do or film, what makes a proper family - those things are very much driven by religion...

        And where else is it still institutionally acceptable to say what jobs a woman can do (or if they're even allowed outside), that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, that young children should be forced to marry..?

        I standby my earlier comment.. Get rid of religion!

    2. lambda_beta
      Linux

      Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

      We should just ban all religion...

      We can't do that, because that would reduce the number of wars we have. Now how can the military justify it's budget?

      1. h4rm0ny
        Paris Hilton

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

        What does Tux have to do with banning religion, or are you saying Linux is your religion?

        1. Col_Panek

          Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

          Yes, GNU/Linux is a religion. Father = RMS, Son = Linus, Holy Ghost = Tux.

          1. Jaybus

            Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

            And....Linus is the way and the truth. The only way into Linux heaven is through Linus.

      2. Angol

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

        Not "it's" but "its".

      3. Col_Panek

        Re: If we want less hot air in the world...

        "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

  3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Read the whole thing

    This article is almost as bad as Jeb Bush's rants.

    Just read the whole thing. Makes me respect the pope even more after his take on Cuba, Austerity, igniting the Middle East and a few other topics of the day.

    Disclaimer - as a staunch atheist there is stuff in there I would never agree with. However respect where respect is due and credit where credit is due. Both to him and to (now retired) Rowan Williams for having what is sorely lacking in todays' politicians - compassion and some level of integrity.

    It is not surprising that he has joined Che as a pin-up on student dorm's walls. Probably the first pope in history too.

    1. you are idiots
      Mushroom

      Re: Read the whole thing

      Lol Respect for pope

      When he stops lying I'll respect him!

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Read the whole thing

        What makes you think he's lying? Because he believes in something you don't? That's not what lying means.

    2. JP19

      Re: Read the whole thing

      "respect the pope"

      I will respect the pope when he convinces god to suck say half the CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into say natural gas for us. Having made the whole planet reformatting a bit of it isn't much of an ask is it.

      On abortion and contraception Catholics don't do it - it helps them breed more Catholics.

      1. Fibbles

        Re: Read the whole thing

        I will respect the pope when he convinces god to suck say half the CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into say natural gas for us.

        You want him to turn a comparatively mild greenhouse gas into a much stronger one?

      2. Red Bren

        Re: Read the whole thing

        > Having made the whole planet reformatting a bit of it isn't much of an ask is it.

        Didn't he do some kind of wipe and refresh using 40 days and nights of rain, with a couple of backup copies of his favourite things in a waterproof container?

        I'm going to start quoting Eddie Izzard again...

      3. Col_Panek

        Re: Read the whole thing

        God is not your personal magician who pulls your ass out of the fire if you bargain with him. That is a deeply flawed theology - which too many people believe.

        The first chapter of the bible says "...God saw it was good.." and then he rested (going on 13 billion years or so, nice holiday) and left it for us to manage. Pope says, let's do it right.

        Science says abortion is the killing of an innocent human.

        Contraception is poison to marriage. Maybe you haven't noticed.

        Family planning is perfectly acceptable and promoted as prudent in Catholic teaching. Safe, effective, and inexpensive methods are available. Open source, too. http://www.cclgb.org.uk/

        1. madick

          Re: Read the whole thing

          "God is not your personal magician who pulls your ass out of the fire if you bargain with him."

          However, according to Genesis 18:22 to 33, Abraham did exactly this.

          50 righteous people - OK. So how about 45? Or 40? or 30? or 20? Well how about 10?

          Although Abraham lost - he couldn't even find 10 righteous people - the story certainly suggests he was bargaining with God.

  4. dogged

    Naughty Britons ever since the time of King Henry VIII haven't been very good about accepting that the Pope is boss of the world, of course.

    To be fair, we weren't really all that great at accepting the Pope as boss of the world before Henry VIII, either. The Normans were pretty pro-Pope (mostly because a succession of Popes let them get way with all kinds of bullshit) but the Angevins and the Plantagenets... really, really not so much. Thomas Becket, anyone?

    And before the Normans, the English church had married priests, a "whatever" attitude to working on Sundays and refused to sell indulgences because that's immoral.

    Basically, we are not good at religion. The Welsh have a good go at it and the Scots can get very antsy about their invisible friend but the English? Mostly we're interested in beer and fighting. A judgemental God who doesn't like beer and fighting was never going to be a big hit here.

    1. boltar Silver badge

      "A judgemental God who doesn't like beer and fighting was never going to be a big hit here."

      Even the clergy drank like fish TBH.

      What people don't realise is that most water sources in medieval times were badly polluted. If you didn't boil the water or have some form of alcohol in your drink to sterilise it you'd be dead from dysentery in a month. Clearly beer was preferable to boiled water. Until tea came along of course!

    2. Rich 11 Silver badge

      A judgemental God who doesn't like beer and fighting was never going to be a big hit here.

      It's all been going downhill since Thunor left.

    3. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad
      Trollface

      (with a voice of that other JC)

      Some say...that our world was created by the trickster called Loki. Which would explain a lot. And shurely, he wouldn't mind a good fight and a decent pint.

    4. Fluffy Cactus

      That's right - Even Benjamin Franklin, a fairly tricky politician, supposedly once said: "Beef is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" I suppose he was trying to build consensus.

  5. codejunky Silver badge

    Ha!

    This is amusing. Normally in MMCC co2 theory debates the absolute believers often like to claim similarity between deniers (not 100% bought into the cults ideas) and creationists. Funny thing is both of these groups 100% believe and neither of these groups have proven their beliefs. In fact both keep moving the goal posts of what scientific and factual evidence is required to prove their belief, but are certain they are right.

    It should give scientists and anyone not 100% certain of that theory a good chuckle but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate nor whatever the actual truth of climate change is. For that I will wait for science.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

      Nor do the Republicans in the US "I'm not a scientist but..."

      However, the Pope has done us a service in taking away something from the debate. He will have reduced confirmation bias among some US Catholics. So far, on the whole, it has been the scientists one one side and the oil and coal interests on the other, with the media stirring the pot for eyeballs. If in some people's minds the opinions of some of the US politicians are now cancelled out by their other patriarchal authority source, perhaps they might actually start thinking.

      (Or perhaps not - I can get a bit overoptimistic sometimes.)

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

        @ Arnaut the less

        Nor do the Republicans in the US "I'm not a scientist but..."

        Some of the insanity some of these people spout is amusing but it is a shame people listen to it. I find the pope spouting non-sense on climate change to be similar to Republicans spouting non-sense on climate change. As to what is happening it is for scientists to tell not politicians and religious leaders.

        However I am not convinced it is scientists vs oil and coal since the fossil fuel companies are right on the bandwagon for all that renewable tech that doesnt work. The actual scientists seem to be drowned out while politicians and green nutters seem to be running the output.

        1. Alan Watson

          Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

          "The actual scientists seem to be drowned out while politicians and green nutters seem to be running the output."

          Except that all of the actual scientists are on one side of this "debate". Lewis puts a lot of effort into his confirmation bias, but the strain of pretending that a few paid company shills are doing real science, carefully selecting data out of context and telling himself that he's seeing the true picture, must be taking a toll on him. Reading his stuff is getting to be like listening to some minor Republican stridently denouncing homosexuality - there's something he's trying very, very hard not to face up to.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

            @ Alan Watson

            "Except that all of the actual scientists are on one side of this "debate"."

            You may have to clear up which side. And not a dodgy 97% consensus figure which was refuted. I am not sure how many scientists actually stand on either side of the debate, all I know is various studies and research tend to get tortured to support the argument of either side. Making credibility in this field pretty difficult I would think.

            "Lewis puts a lot of effort into his confirmation bias"

            He does. I consider lewis and andrew's postings on MMCC co2 theory to be the equivalent to the confirmation bias from the other side. How many times have we been told we must solve it within x days or we are doomed? And how many lies and discredited non-sense have been published as peer reviewed fact? I feel sorry for scientists who now have a devalued title because of politics.

          2. JP19

            Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

            "all of the actual scientists are on one side of this "debate""

            The side that has all the money, careers, and even nobel prizes on it? Why am I not surprised?

            1. DavCrav Silver badge

              Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

              "The side that has all the money, careers..."

              I think the oil and gas industry has enough money to sponsor its own 'science' actually.

      2. Eddy Ito Silver badge

        Re: Ha! - but in the end the pope adds nothing of value to the debate

        ... some of the US politicians are now cancelled out by their other patriarchal authority source, perhaps they might actually start thinking.

        If you look at who this speaks to you'll notice that historically Catholics have been largely Democrats where the religious right are mostly Protestant and often evangelical. While the Catholic vote has evened out in the last few decades to a more 60/40 split it still favors Democrats. A quick look at the current congress shows 25 Catholics in the Senate, 16 are Democrats and of the House's 134 Catholics you'll find just over half are Democrats. What does this mean politically in the US? Mostly nothing since while it may be the largest religious denomination in the US it's still pretty small since all Catholics go into one bucket while Protestants get divided into their own particular flavors.

    2. Thought About IT

      Re: Ha!

      "For that I will wait for science."

      You go far beyond scepticism if you think you still have to wait for the science!

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Ha!

        @ Thought About IT

        "You go far beyond scepticism if you think you still have to wait for the science!"

        You are aware that in science something requires proving with measurable results to demonstrate that the theory is right or even along the right lines? By that measure we know that the climate changes (has throughout history). It is also possible that we have an effect on that too! But MMCC co2 theory isnt there yet.

  6. Buzzword

    Vague platitudes, no concrete calls for action

    I see lots of green flag-waving but no mention of specifics. He could demand global cap & trade legislation to limit CO2 emissions; he could demand anti-pesticide laws or anti-pollution laws in those countries which have a problem with environmental pollution (clue: not the west). He could even say that people who switch on their air-conditioners when the outdoor temperature is less than 30 degrees will burn in hell (oh the irony!). But no, it's just a wishy-washy motherhood & apple pie statement. Nothing to see here.

    1. HausWolf

      Re: Vague platitudes, no concrete calls for action

      Well he could have mentioned how farm runoff (environmental) pollution had rendered the drinking water of over 1/2 million people on one of the great lakes ... clue: it's in the west .. non potable.

      At least he's trying to address the issue from a human standpoint as opposed to a stockholder viewpoint.

  7. John Savard Silver badge

    Not Impressed

    It is unclear to me that this article provides any useful insight, other than an attempt at guilt by association, into the climate change question - even if it does tell us things about the current Pope that may be of interest, if they surprised anyone. (Since the Pope is Catholic, it should come as no surprise that he believes in God.)

    It definitely is true that we will need more energy production to address world poverty; however, instead of burning more oil, we do have an alternative. It seems that nuclei of Uranium-235 can produce large amounts of energy under certain conditions...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not Impressed

      "(Since the Pope is Catholic, it should come as no surprise that he believes in God.)"

      If you read the lives of some of the Popes, it is pretty obvious that they didn't. They behaved in a way which their own religion told them would end up in their going to Hell with complete certainty. It's the awkward reforming Popes like John XXII and the present one who seem to take things seriously.

  8. User McUser
    Alert

    give up their cars, regular washing, central heating, healthcare, foreign travel etc.

    Why would we have to give those things up when controlled nuclear fission exist? No greenhouse gasses and uranium is cheap and plentiful.

    1. Paul Shirley

      It continues to mightily piss me off that both sides are so loud in their ranting and obstruction that things we should be doing don't happen if it looks remotely like climate change mitigation overlaps in purpose. That research is constantly under attack - very much like neither believers or deniers want to know the truth.

      That no evidence is too large to ignore or too small not to shout about, depending on the needs of your argument.

      And I'm still surprised Page didn't throw a frothing fit over the recent 'warming pause was a measurement error' stories...

      1. Dan Paul

        No, but I will....

        "And I'm still surprised Page didn't throw a frothing fit over the recent 'warming pause was a measurement error' stories..."

        Just another reason why I think the whole frikkin thing is the 2nd biggest lie perpetrated on humanity.

        They "adjusted" the warming pause numbers to fit their argument.

        Lying cheaters need to be ground into bonemeal.

    2. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
      Pint

      "...when controlled nuclear fission exist?"

      Nukes are normally connected into the grid. Foreign travel would require some mighty long extension cords. .: Nukes are presumably necessary, but insufficient. We need additional magic.

      By way of example, Canada's grid is already well past 80% non-carbon (mostly hydro, plus nukes and windmills). But we still get yelled at. Because the grid is only part of it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No greenhouse gasses ?

      I guess you are going to eliminate all dairy and beef producing livestock and replace them with an alternate substance generated from uranium?

      Hint: Look up the % and effect of various greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

  9. Thought About IT

    Debate is over?

    "For anyone else, maybe not so much."

    That speaks to the success of the propaganda campaign run by the fossil fuel industries and those ideologically opposed to the implications of our greenhouse gas emissions affecting the climate. It obviously didn't influence the Pope though.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    <slow applause>

    At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious…

    The fact that someone who, contrary to all the evidence, believes in silly beardy sky pilots also happens to believe it's a good idea to pay attention to what most specialists in a certain scientific field are saying does not actually mean those specialists are wrong.

    I imagine that if the pope had cancer, he'd listen to proper doctors rather than get some leeches in.

    This is one of the worst, stupidest things I've ever read on The Register, and I can't believe I've fallen for the bait...

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: <slow applause>

      The fact that someone who..... ....believes in silly beardy sky pilots ...

      So Branson is God???? Who knew...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: <slow applause>

      "Amen" to that. Admittedly I only took the bait to witness the train wreck at first hand, and in that respect alone this ignorant and silly article didn't disappoint. In terms of merit and entertainment value however, it was well south of Eadon, leaving me to wonder why the better troll got the banhammer while the lesser gets the glory.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: believes in silly beardy sky pilots

      But he doesn't. If you knew anything about serious religious thought you'd know that God isn't a big beardy man in the sky, even if sometimes people have drawn that. It seems that you can't understand allegory. If you want to rant on about this stuff then actually do some bloody learning. And I don't mean reading Dawkins, who knows as little about religion as you seem to.

  11. James O'Shea Silver badge

    Frankie is changing my mind about Popes

    I suffered through Official Church Schools from elementary to university. I thought that the Pole was a dangerous right-wing fanatic and the German was an out-right Nazi. (Read up on what happened to Karol in Poland both during and after WWII and the exploits of der Panzerkardinal before he got enPoped to see why...) I was quite prepared to believe that Frankie would be more of the same... except he's a Jesuit. And NOT European. Jesuits, especially South American Jesuits, have historically be extremely irritating to right-wingers. (All that stuff about actually _thinking_...) Iggy Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus, started out by irritating lots of the governments of the time (and the then Pope) and the Jesuits have followed his lead ever since. Except that one of them is now Pope, so he's annoying the hell out of everyone else. Der Panzerkardinal was head of the (reformed and renamed) Inquisition before being enPoped, at about the time of the Great Paedophile Priest Scandal... and he did not a damn thing. Frankie is using the full power of the (name changed to 'The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' to protect the guilty) Inquisition to nail bishops and archbishops and even cardinals to the wall, a direct slap at Benny der Panzerkardnial. (And a rebuke to Karol the Pole for letting Benny get away with it...)

    It appears that the Church of Rome is no longer run by moss-backed dinosaurs. It's been some time since this was so. I'm getting out to popcorn while I watch Frankie chew on theropods. It's much more entertaining than Jurassic World. A lot of what Frankie does is aimed at the moss-backs, including this bit about climate change.

    It also appears that m'man Lewis really, really, REALLY has a thing about climate change. Lewis doesn't seem to notice that the primary target of this, and virtually everything else this or any other Pope does, is internal. This is Frankie going nuclear on the right-wingers. And, yes, as he is a Jesuit, it means that he actually had a look at the evidence and made up his own mind on it, though opposition to the position of the righties no doubt played a large part. Jesuits, especially South American Jesuits, have been doing that kind of thing for _centuries_ now.

    And, oh, Lewis... I had a look at the available evidence myself a while back, and it was sufficient to persuade me while humans may not be responsible for _all_ of climate change, we are responsible for _a lot_ of climate change. This is one reason why I've been a longtime supporter of nuclear power; humans need a lot of power to build a civilization, and nukes don't eat fossil fuels. I don't have the position I do because I was commanded to by the Pope; I've been ignoring Papal commands since Karol was sitting in the Throne of St. Peter. I have the position I have because I looked at the evidence. Frankie has moved the Church to my position, though for internal political reasons. I'm waiting to see what else Frankie does to really piss off the righties; tolerance for gays and/or female priests would be my guess. The explosions you'd be hearing would be rightie skulls popping around the world. Opus Dei would have collective heart failure, and it couldn't happen to a better bunch.

    Deus vult, and all that, boys'n'girls. Invest in lots of popcorn.

    1. ian 22

      Re: Frankie is changing my mind about Popes

      @James O'Shea

      Lovely, and I thought I was the only bomb thrower! Well said! 'Ave an upvote.

    2. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Frankie is changing my mind about Popes

      Wish I could upvote more than once. Beer for you =----------->

  12. Phil Lord

    Mis-use of "is-a"

    The phrase "is-a" suggests that every instance of climate change belief is also a religious belief.

    In fact, all the article says is that there are some beliefs which are both religious and which are climate change belief. Or, alternatively, that religious belief and climate change belief are not disjoint.

    Not a surprise, really. I mean, there is a swathe of the world where climate change denialism and religious belief co-occur also.

    None of this understanding substantially adds information content to our understanding of whether human activity is causing widespread and significant alteration to our climate.

    Still, got to laugh, eh?

  13. nsld
    Coat

    So

    The Sky Fairies PR man on earth says that the things the sky fairy invented are wrecking the other thing the sky fairy invented.

    Sounds to me like its all the fault of the sky fairy.

  14. TVC

    bloke in a dress, who believes in a myth and who won’t allow contraception............

    So we are supposed to take a bloke in a dress, who believes in a myth and who won’t allow contraception, seriously when there are too many people on this planet and the biggest carbon footprint is left by procreation.

    He is just a joke.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Two sides

    To every debate there are two sides and on those sides are those that will support their side to the death if necessary. We see that in action here with one side saying that man is evil - the eco-nuts - and the other side saying show us the proof that man is evil and never the twain shall meet.

    The eco-nuts are trying to be the modern day slavers by keeping the poor in Africa and other countries in abject poverty by denying them plentiful, cheap, reliable electricity and machinery to work the land (we can't have them getting above themselves can we?). They do this by saying that the plant food gas is evil of itself and anything that makes it should be banned - yet they produce it with abandon on their flights round the world to various meetings with the one coming up in Paris likely to produce more than all of Africa produces in a year (hypocritical?).

    To bolster their beliefs they insist the poor nations of the world subscribe to 'unfair trade' where the poor work for a pittance and the product of that slave labour makes several thousand percent profit for the slavers.

    If what is being perpetrated on the poor of the world by the eco-nuts is not slavery then I don't know what it is unless it is genocide.

    Those on the other side of the debate say 'prove it' using real figures from actual measurements not those that have been 'adjusted' to fit the party line and outcome.

    So far not one of man made climate change predictions have come anywhere near being correct - there are less catastrophic storms when they predicted there would be more. They measure temperature to one hundredth of a degree C when the instruments are only accurate to plus/minus a tenth of a degree - it just does not make sense, especially when they dump whole swathes of good raw data because it doesn't fit the dialogue.

    Now I challenge all the ecos on here to prove what I say is wrong but I fear that they will just down arrow this post because it does not fit their belief. Sorry people but if you do you are just proving my and Lewis's point, climate change is a belief system.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Two sides

      I think you have it backwards. They don't want to keep those poor in their place. The more fanatical want the rest of us to join them. Except for themselves of course. Since they know better, they get the cash, cars, luxuries, etc.

    2. oneeye

      Re: Two sides

      Finally! There is at least one smart person to comment on this thread. Thank you,I could not say it any better than you have.

      To the guy who said,"i have looked at the evidence and am convinced" well,you looked at cooked books. It amazes me always at the stupidity of those who refuse to look at both sides of the argument. Shows a profound LACK of intelligence,meaning no intellectual honesty. Over at climatedepot.com they coined the phrase,or identifier now of the enviromental wackos. They are " the Church of Climatology" truly religious zealots. I thank the author for being one of those "naughty Britons" and a realist who has the guts to stand up to all the uninformed,arrogant,know it alls. Bravo !!

      1. Jack Faust meets Mephistopheles

        Re: Two sides

        Seriosuly how can you purport to know the future so definitely that there is no such thing as climate change that has been alluded to? Yes there is data that supports both sides of the arguement and do you know what that should indicate? That open minds should be kept on both sides.

        To say it is this one or another smacks of hubris - and what if we are causing climate change - is encouraging less pollution and higher efficiencies such a bad thing? Perhaps a climate form of Pascal's wager should be devised....

        1. Fluffy Cactus

          Re: Two sides

          I know there are 2 sides to each issue - but - well, Pascal's wager with regard to belief in God or not, I looked at that many years ago, and I found it unconvincing. This is because the consequences of believing in God or not are sincerely not as clear cut as he makes them out to be. There is the "philosophical idea" of an ideal God, and then there are the various "prescribed ideas of God as provided by different organized religions run by humans". The humans are what makes each religion less than ideal.

          Likewise, the consequences of a "climate form of Pascal's wager" are not necessarily as obvious and specific as they are made out to be. In the end, in either case I am being told to believe something on the basis of insufficient data, and if something somewhere in my brain tells me that I might get pushed into a belief that does not make enough sense to me, then I take the "wait and see attitude". You can probably tell that I am not catholic, and that I am protesting too much to even be a Protestant. Nonetheless, lack of belief in any particular religion does not imply a lack of a code of ethics.

  16. jrwc

    So, the RC learned its lesson not to sell indulgences but now it will sell carbon credits? We Yanks have heard stories how little Brits have been told how scarier global warming will be than, say for instance, hell. Maybe leftists will ditch the alarmism now that the Pope endorses it. Howls. The Pope is only representative of the RC and NOT God, thank God. This should only have been a Papal Bull because its all bull.

  17. Gannettt

    Great news for Republicans

    If climate change is a religion, that means it cannot be taught in US public schools, and so a while generation can now be ignorant of the consequences, they hope!

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Considering that all time high temperatures are constantly occurring and the evidence that global warming exists, I think that this guy, like so many other anti-global warming freaks, is on the payroll of major industries (Including Koch brothers who are fighting global warming ideas with a passion). The funny thing and almost all of the anti-global warming advocates seem to have ties to big business and the wealthy., Sad

    1. Steelhead

      Good point and well put.

      The irony is that (and I know that is is so uncomfortable to the average Sun/El Reg reader) has multiple degrees in Science and is more qualified to speak on such matters than certain bigoted and narrow-minded reporters that spring to mind.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Considering that all time high temperatures are constantly occurring and the evidence that global warming exists,

      Er.... No. You've seen obviously made-up "statistics" and have accepted the obvious and blatant lies promulgated by Leftist idiots. We just happen to be in the latter stages of a convenient up-swing in global temperature, which will (as usual) be followed by a similar down-swing. This cycle has gone on for as long as we can look back into the past and is clearly demonstrated by the average size of the yearly tree-rings seen in older trees.....

      The hottest period in recent history was during the 1790 - 1810 period - just before the Industrial Revolution kicked in. This was followed just a few years later by winters so cold that there were annual "Frost Fairs" on the frozen Thames.......

  19. Steelhead

    I thought of commenting but it like writing a comment to the Daily Mail saying that their article is homophobic or bigoted.

  20. PJD

    And plate tectonics are a myth too!

    I kind of love that the Reg has a climate change denialist as their main correspondent on the topic. It's highly entertaining. I'm looking forward to them digging up someone still opposed to the notion of plate tectonics to rant at us about that too. Something for the Reg's weekend edition perhaps?

  21. mememine69

    Bible thumping libs?

    Are you new bible thumping liberals now also anti gay and pro life as well?

    We will all die if we don't give deniers what they want and the sooner we allow science to simply say "proven" as Obomber says, the sooner we can end this costly debate to save the planet.

    Science can shut down the denier machine by being allowed to say "proven".

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another mass genocide maybe?

    If God is so bothered about what we are doing to the planet, he could always just kill nearly everything on Earth again like he apparently did once before with the flood. Hit the reset button and start again.

    He can always apologise again with another rainbow.

    1. JustWondering

      Re: Another mass genocide maybe?

      Um ... God isn't so hot on the whole rainbow thing anymore. Makes it look like He supports those ... you know ...

  23. JustWondering
    Happy

    I'm sorry

    Did I miss the part where Frank tells us he has spoken to the Big Guy about this and things will be straightened out by the weekend? If the whole infinite universe can be created in a week, how long can adjusting the thermostat take?

    1. James O'Shea Silver badge

      Re: I'm sorry

      Sigh. It's been Official Catholic Doctrine for a long time now that Biblical literalism is a fallacy. No, it is NOT policy that the universe was created in six (not seven...) days about 6,000 years ago. Hint: the person who first proposed the theory currently known as the Big Bang Theory (so named by the rather atheist Fred Hoyle in a failed attempt to discredit it...) was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest working at a Catholic university. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre I went to Church schools from elementary to university. I was introduced to the theory of evolution in high school, by an actual ordained Jesuit priest who had absolutely no problems with the subject. Indeed, his fav line when a creationist cretin tried to argue with him was "Men wrote the Bible. God wrote the rocks. If what the Bible tells us disagrees with what the rocks tell us, then the Bible is wrong. The rocks tell us that the Earth is billions of years old and that life has been here for much of that time, and that man is a relatively recent development. If the Bible says different, then either we're reading it incorrectly or someone made an error when writing it. You may be quite sure that God did not make an error writing the rocks." Mumbles about problems with 'carbon dating' were met by pointing out that carbon dating is actually limited to quite recent times, and that other radioisotope dating methods work using the same theories which make items ranging from light bulbs to nuclear bombs work. Anyone who has a problem with radioisotope dating needs to provide a theory showing how those problems can be accommodated while still having light bulbs work.

      Yes, there are Catholics who are creationist cretins. They haven't been paying attention to Official Church Policy for more than a century. They are the kind of people who Frankie is going after, to either drag them into at least the 20th century or to run 'em out of the Church entirely, he doesn't much care which.

      1. AJ MacLeod

        Re: I'm sorry (@James O' Shea

        " Anyone who has a problem with radioisotope dating needs to provide a theory showing how those problems can be accommodated while still having light bulbs work."

        No they don't. Anyone may accept the science of radioactive decay without accepting the stories people tell about how the rocks came to be, their initial conditions or the length of time they've been there.

        Any form of radiometric dating requires one to assume variables which in most cases cannot be known in any scientific sense; all of them are calibrated using other "dates" produced by uniformitarian reasoning and even then more often than not give conflicting "ages" for the materials being tested (the "correct" age selected being the one most in line with the ideas of the researcher.) Somewhat ironically "carbon dating" used on historically recent items is possibly the most useful variant, not the most problematic.

        Rocks may contain clues of sorts, but they don't tell stories and don't have date labels attached - people tell stories about the rocks and those stories are a product of the worldview and presuppositions of the person.

        You may not like to accept any of that, and may be 100% convinced that the standard uniformitarian dogma is correct, but that doesn't make it so.

        1. jrwc

          Re: I'm sorry (@James O' Shea

          I=E/R is a Law. Evolution is a theory.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Global Apollo Program' as promoted by Martin Rees

    Areas for even more R&D funding...

    Even cheaper solar.

    Battery improvements so that e-car proponents can stop telling lies.

    Bacteria or algae that can eat cellulose and make liquid fuels? Yes please.

    Solar thermal plants in Sahara to get Germany off coal

    Power lines from Iceland

    Mostly we need to get smarter people managing the whole thing.

  25. Gray Ham
    Trollface

    Look on the bright side ..

    From an Australian perspective, maybe Toned Abs will start listening to his boss in Rome rather than the one in Pyrmont ...

  26. Shannon Jacobs
    Holmes

    Skepticism falling over into stupidity

    I actually like the skepticism of the Register, but on this topic it has simply tipped over the bottle of pure stupidity. At least seeing the byline saves me having to read farther--and by extension to ANY topic that byline gets associated with.

  27. oneeye

    Demagoguery is the only tool in the shed for "the Church of Climatology" Hypocrisy the only trait that matters. The religious zealots drink the koolaid,and then tell us all how smart they are. Stop embarrassing yourselves. You are losing ground every day,and your desperation is obvious. You become more shrill and ridiculous with every prediction having failed so spectacularly. But do continue to lie to yourself,because thats the only way you can have any self worth. So sad.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maybe you should look in a mirror? Faced with serious problems and questions what is the rational response? 3 people walk out of the cave in the morning and you see a SabreTooth tiger. One looks to the sky and says 'save me oh ancestor', and luckily the tiger is distracted by a passing deer, so caveman one thinks' oh i must worship my ancestors'. Unfortunately a week later he sees the same tiger, and calls on his ancestor to save him. Unfortunately there is no convenient deer around, so he gets ate. Caveman 2 backs quietly back in the cave, and decides that in future he must stop leaving carrion near the cave, because its attracting danger. Caveman 3 says, 'sabretooths don't exist, because I read on a blog somewhere its all a conspiracy' and gets eaten.

      Fortunately Darwin suggests that eventually Caveman type 2 will be the sole survivors. Sadly there aren't quite enough sabretooths to get us there, but caveman 3's ancestors are still chucking their rubbish out on the threshold of the cave. At least Caveman 1's ancestors have now realised that the ancestors gave us free will, and with that comes responsibility.

      I am genuinely interested where you get your passion from about this, and why you think climate scientists are lying to themselves - have you ever met a climate scientist and talked it over, or is the echo chamber of the internet and talk radio adequate proof for you of a conspiracy?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Environmentalists generally have a problem with authority. I know this, because I know environmentalists. Not all of them of course, but enough to notice a pattern, so what would actually happen is:

        Caveman 2, the 'wise' caveman - obviously you see yourself as more wise than the rest of us, so this would be you, would go up to the tiger and tell it: "I know my rights, you can't eat me". At which point caveman 2 gets eaten.

  28. Werner McGoole

    It's all about controlling people

    Religious leaders have always needed something big and scary so that the church could save you from it, especially so the Church of Rome that has so many people to control. These days, governments are using the tactic rather more effectively than churches, though - and with better memes, what with fire and brimstone being a bit old hat.

    Unfortunately for the Pope, however, paedophiles are out (for obvious reasons) and terrorists are a bit risky considering how the Romans would have viewed Jesus of Nazereth. So climate change seems to fit the bill nicely.

    It's a bit surprising it's taken Rome so long to catch on to the trend everyone's been following for years. But, then, they've only quite recently caught on to the Earth going around the Sun, so I guess you can't expect miracles.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's all about controlling people

      "I guess you can't expect miracles"

      Nice. Have an upvote Werner.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: It's all about controlling people

        if you could reliably expect miracles then they wouldn't be miracles

        of course there is climate change - when a megaconservative guy like the pope agrees with the science then 'nuff said.

        On the other hand I dont care, I will be long dead and it is your children & grandchildren that will have to deal with the consequences. Still we should cut down on the pollution and up the power generation so its More Nukes Now!

  29. cortland

    Well! THERE'S an interesting slant. It's one we hear a lot on the West side of The Pond.

    But I must ask: Isn't taking out the trash conservative? Isn't CONSERVATION conservative? Why aren't conservatives on the side of putting the CO2 back in the ground? Could it be money?

    According to a study performed by Guttmacher Institute, long-acting contraceptive methods were having a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

    The abortion debate has not typically dealt with a spontaneous abortion, which is commonly referred to as a miscarriage until several states passed laws in 2013 prohibiting a woman who miscarried from receiving medical treatment for 48 hours after diagnosis and forcing her to undergo an additional ultrasound prior to her procedure.

    --See Wiki above

    Sources vary, but many estimate that approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; and some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.

    http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

    Poverty and diet plays a large part in this statistic,and do conservatives care? Aside from the Pope? (He doesn't like birth control -- which has cut abortions by a third in recent years; you can't win them all.)

    http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_kingston_trio/the_merry_minuet.html

  30. Jos V
    Joke

    Poke

    God is a PFY playing Simcity on his C64. Soon he'll upgrade his system and just switch us off and start playing Doom. :-p

  31. Phil Skuse

    > Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.

    When the pope says this, it's like goldy and bronzy but it's made of iron.

  32. Dan Paul

    When are you even going to see?

    CO2 is not the problem and never has been. This so called MM warming is BS to line the pockets of politicians and energy producers and always has.

    Try looking at methane and other hydrocarbon gases as they are far more Infrared absorbing than CO2. Methane hydrate formations in the ocean are able to come out of the solid state and sublime into the gaseous state with nothing more than a mild earthquake. They rise to the top of the atmosphere and thus don't show in low altitude analysis. The decomposition of organic vegetable materials adds to these gases in various forms including methane and smog forming NOx, also IR absorbing.

    The sheer biomass involved can't be ignored, except it has because of "scientists" more interested in funding than real science. This is a closed ecosystem and everything that affects it is cumulative. Favoring one issue over another doesn't change the fact that they are all present and must be accounted for. We have some human influence certainly, but that is not the only cause.

    1. John Hughes

      Re: When are you even going to see?

      Splendid.

      Niow explain why the CO2 we know we are adding to the atmosphere has no effect, and explain why there is a trend in methane release that matches the trend in temperature.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: When are you even going to see?

        Why don't YOU provide proof it doesn't happen first? Because you can't provide proof of anything climate related here, only theory, models of theories and completely unmitigated conjecture interspersed with outright lying.

        CO2 is produced by people breathing, plants, and combustion. However plants also use CO2 as food in the opposite cycle. What is released in one way is depleted in another. Algae in the ocean eat an enormous amount of ambient CO2. Data on what is "in the air" can't remain constant and if it does, proves that the data is fake or misleading. They "pick" locations with the highest concentrations and temps to use in their data and deprecate the rural areas with low CO2/Temps.

        That can rarely happen to methane. Nothing but extremophile bacteria eat it and they are only around undersea volcanic vents. Animals and decaying vegetation produce it in abundance and it is naturally occurring at such volumes as to make deep sea mining of the hydrates viable.

        It is lighter than air so surface gas analysis does not pick it up well. We don't have much measurement going on at the upper extent of the atmosphere. Much methane comes from the ocean and they don't station many gas analyzers there for obvious reasons. Also, when all your devices are tuned for CO2 you don't easily find methane. Ultraviolet radiation will eventually break the CH4 bonds and cause other gases to form at that altitude. Let's not even consider that H2O is a decent IR absorber too and could be forming at high altitude from the breakdown of hydrocarbon gases.

        But the real reason you don't see it as affecting climate is that the so called climatologists have put ALL their eggs in the AGW CO2 basket and will be denied all future funding if they get an inch out of line with the propaganda.

        Therefore no research will be done outside of the AGW climate fairytales. Blinded by "science", they won't look at ALL the players, only the one that got them funded.

  33. Roscomac

    Universities teach that the "back - radiation" from the atmosphere has the same power of the solar radiation which they first divide by 4 to fit their mistaken theory.

    But ignoring the divide by 4 thingy is it appropriate to assign equal power to the radiation from the atmosphere ?

    Early morning or late afternoon when the Sun is low on the horizon it is theoretically possible that the solar radiation may well have a value of 239.7 watts per square metre but does that mean that it is equivalent to the atmospheric "back - radiation" ?

    The answer is a most emphatic NO !

    Everyone instinctively know this but allow themselves to be bullied by someone with a PhD and an agenda into believing they don't know.

    The proof of the absurdity of assigning equal heating power to the solar radiation and the atmospheric "back - radiation" is astonishingly simple.

    Using an magnifying device like a polished metallic mirror to focus radiation it is easily possible to start fires or cook food using sunlight. Every camper who uses a magnifying glass to start their fires know this. Everyone except climate scientists apparently.

    They don't work too well at night though - or even during the day if turned away from the Sun.

    There is no equivalence between the solar radiation and the atmospheric "back - radiation" - none at all !

    Remember, it is Universities that teach this nonsense as "science". If you don't believe that you only need to google University and greenhouse effect to find literally hundreds of examples where this nonsense is taught. The University of Washington 2002 ATMS 211 notes site is very clear and simple explanation on this claimed "effect".

    The problem is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation used extensively in climate science only gives a number as a result - it does not, and cannot, "define" the nature of the radiation or its source.

    Anyone who tells you the atmospheric "back - radiation" has the same "power" as the solar radiation based on a simple number is simply plain wrong - but Universities teach this to students who must answer "yes sir" if they wish to pass exams.

    Academia should hang their heads in shame !

    If the very fundamental claim about the "back radiative greenhouse effect" is wrong how can you rely on the rest of it ?

    1. bert_fe

      To Roscomac

      I went to have a look what you were calling plain wrong Roscomac with this search string 'The University of Washington 2002 ATMS 211 notes'. This is just simple first year Physics which you seem to not understand in the slightest. If you have studied physics then it seems you have failed academia.

      No wonder there are so many Green House Effect deniers.

      'Forgive them father as they know not what they do.' JC

      Bert

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On skeptics and deniers...

    The Apollo missions to the Moon were delayed by not even one picosecond by the strange beliefs held by members of the Flat Earth Society. Deflecting blame for slow progress on the 'green energy' front to the 'deniers' is pure self-delusional fraud. It's categorically not their fault. It's primarily the fault of the innumerate environMentals that are incapable of seeing the benefit of, for example, what Martin Rees calls the 'Global Apollo' program. There's extremely poor and ineffective management at the top of the ecoMental hierarchy. The noisiest environMentals are typically perfectly innumerate, incapable of even formulating a rational priority list, and have all the technical management skill set of an Adam's telephone sanitizer technician. Any blame needs to redirected back to the idiot environMentals, exactly where it belongs.

    Healthy skepticism is part and parcel of the scientific method. Those noisily defending the science using the vocabulary and weapons of religious propaganda, calling for unity and faith while screaming 'Skeptic! Skeptic!" just like "Witch! Witch!" is crazy. They're apparently so uneducated on history that they can't see the ironic issue with their own behaviour.

    The world would be on a better path if the environMentals replaced their own irrational ineffective innumerate screeching lunacy with a cold calculating prioritized skeptical rational program of green energy technology and clever policy.

    Maybe they could hire a skeptic to manage the whole thing.

  35. mikebartnz

    Quote "by an increase of extreme weather events"

    The opposite has been happening so it is more BS.

  36. herman Silver badge

    Now that the churches are getting on the band wagon, it basically proves that we need not take any of it seriously, since Church and Science don't mix.

  37. Alan Brown Silver badge

    energy sources

    "he is unwilling to admit the inconvenient truth that we will need huge amounts of non-renewable energy if the poor are ever to get a taste of the good life."

    There's an important point right there. Wind/solar/tidal are all insufficient. Putting a huge solar farm in the sahara and piping the energy north ignores the issue of up to 20 times that demand to the south who won't be happy about the north stealing their resources yet again.

    The long term solution is nuclear - done properly, not by dunking fragile fuel rods in acidified water at $STUPID pressure and temperatures (which incidentally aren't actually hot enough, but if you make it hotter the water molecules start disassociating). IE: Low pressure, extremely hot molten salt systems which have extremely low waste output (98% or so less) compared to current nuclear plants and can use current nuclear plant waste as fuel.

    Fusion would be better but I don't expect to see it as a commercial reality in my grandchildren's lifetimes, let alone the next few years - and we need to act now, not hang around waiting for fusion.

    Ideally one would use

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so now the opinion reversals!

    people who condemned anything remotely "religious" as dangerous falsehood will now cite the Pope often and loudly as a credible source.

  39. jrwc

    Curiously, "science" recommended to the RC Church in the 1950's to stock their seminaries with candidates who were pro homosexual.

  40. Jim Birch

    News?

    This is a news item?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019