Here’s what Cardinal Pell of Sydney had to say:
Global warming doomsdayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in Central Queensland and then here in Sydney. January also was unusually cool.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us. They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, that there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight story building, the Amazon basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and in Greenland melts.
An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to “holocaust deniers”.
A local newspaper editorial’s complaint about the doomsdayers’ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity. Christians don’t go against reason although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace probabilities. What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.
I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.
A few fixed points might provide some light. We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah’s flood, where human causation could only be negligible. Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!
Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years, as with the Federation Drought and in the 1930s. One drought lasted fourteen years.
We all know that a cool January does not mean much in the long run, but neither does evidence from a few years only. Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.
The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring. Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer and especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.
The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years. Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon?
While we might have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg off Dunedin as large as an aircraft carrier we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.
The science is more complicated than the propaganda!
Cardinal pell is no more a climatologist than the rest of us lay folks. His comments above are precisely why the Church should be very careful about its forays into politics. I would agree that the jury is still out on the whole global warning issue, but consider the below:
Mat 24:3-9 (NIV) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.”
Mark 13:23 (NIV) “So be on your guard, I have told you everything ahead of time.”
Luke 21:25-28 (NIV) “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”
Mat 24:36-42 (NIV) “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.”
Rev 1:3 (RSV) Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.
Could our current cycle of global weather patterns be a part of the birth pains we’ve all been awaiting, particularly in light of other major events in the world like wars and rumors of wars that have the potential to be unlike any other wars in history?
I am extremely skeptical that GW has any type of eschatalogical implications, and almost as skeptical that it is as serious or as man-influenced as the current mass semi-hysteria suggests, but I agree with the prior poster that our clergy should be very careful about treading into areas outside their discipline. If we’re patient, good science will eventually win out over bad science, whichever way that cuts.
Ditto what Mike Petrik said.
Seems Albert Gore Jr. is able to express his views on this controversy even though he is treading into areas far outside his discipline.
If we must wait until we completely understand the forces behind this issue before commenting, not a person on earth should be talking.
The Cardinal didn’t say anything all that bad. He offered his opinion on Global Warmimg (“I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all.”), talked about the mixed scientific facts available to the public, and noted that the extreme weather warnings are just that…extreme.
I see nothing wrong with a Cardinal (or any priest) addressing the issue, so long as it’s done in this manner.
Cardinal Pell is right on the money. He is well within his rights to speak on the ethics of junk science and hysteria peddling. I agree with him – Show us the science!!
This reminds me of Galileos response when asked to show the science in his ideas. He could not. Almost all the proofs he offered were wrong and were shown to be wrong then.
The science is complicated, so what if an organization like the World Meteorological Organization set up an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consisting of 2000 of the world’s leading experts on this subject to assess the evidence and report to the United Nations and its governments?
They have and are convinced that human activity is significantly changing our climate. http://www.ipcc.ch and http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate
The vast majority of the world’s climate scientists believe that human activity is changing the climate. Just as the majority of cancer scientists believe that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
Most of the alleged experts who are sceptical of climate change are paid by oil companies. The only scientists who are sceptical of the link between tobacco and lung cancer are paid by tobacco companies.
If the vast majority of the world’s climatologists are correct this is the biggest threat to our way of life. It would be nice if global warming was a myth and we could carry on abusing our stewardship as we do.
Coal and oil was produced slowly over millions of years by locking up atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the space of 150 years we have put this carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Then we wonder why Inuit people notice the ice receding, why people in the UK notice shorter milder winters. Why the poor suffer the worse from stronger more frequent hurricanes.
The difficulty for many people is appreciating trends with ocassionial counter blips. The sceptics will only be certain when the process is complete and it is too late. We should not allow our like or dislike of Bush or Gore to cloud our judgement.
For some of the evidence which convinced a formerly sceptical scientist http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935235&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193317039&path=!health!healthology
Again..Show the science!
Are you saying that scientists that work for industry are not trustworthy scientists? George Orwell must be chuckling at the prospect that ‘all scientists are equal but some are more equal that others’!!
All scientists agree that one single bit of negtive evidence is much more powerfull and convincing than tons of positive evidence. That’s why astrophysicists no longer teach about the interstellar ether.
Pseudomono – if you follow the links you will summaries of the evidence. The full evidence is hundreds of scientific papers. There is a consensus amongst the experts.
From the last of my links: there is more CO2 in the air now than for 650,000 years based on Antartic ice cores. “We observe climate warming by increases in air and sea temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, rising sea levels, and widespread changes in rainfall, ocean salinity, winds, and the intensity of hurricanes. Climate warming does not mean that every place on the globe is warmer all the time. The most noticeable effects are in weather changes that are the result of new energy flows in the atmosphere and the oceans.”
I am not a climatologist, I doubt that any one here is. We regularly put our lives in the hands of experts if we are convinced they know enough. eg I want a qualified surgeon to operate on me not a garage mechanic, I want a qualified garage mechanic to fix my car not a surgeon.
Until we have studied the subject in some depth it is rational to rely on those who have spent the time and are specially qualified to speak – especially if there is a consensus amongst them.
In response to a claim similar to “Most of the alleged experts who are sceptical of climate change are paid by oil companies,” a rather wise man once said to me, “Always remember, everyone is on somebody’s payroll.” I thus put relatively little faith in such arguements.
I’m much more open to the possibility that GW is the result of human activity than I used to be, but one fact has really kept me from accepting the idea, even when I was most otherwise convinced of it. In the past 100 years, the climate has risen approximately 1 degree. 60% of that rise occured prior to 1950. In other words, the climate rose less in the years after man had built all of the factories which alledgedly cause the problem than it had before.
I’m presenting this in complete openness. I don’t intend to be confrontational, I really am out on this issue, but for obvious reasons this particular fact makes me really go ‘hmmmmm.’
The US Congress again heard tesimony on this ealier this year. From the article posted here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-02-02.asp:
“Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans, glaciers and ice caps show unequivocally that the Earth is warming, according to the first global assessment of climate change science in six years.
The report confirms that the observed increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1750 is the result of human activities.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, concludes that advances in climate modeling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists 90 percent confidence in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm.”
While the sky might not be falling yet, I think it’s high time we start putting money into developing alternative energy resources. IMHO global warming is not the worst problem associated with fossil feul emmisions; several emissions byproducts are toxic to life in general. I heard someone put it this way: we are going into some desert and hauling out black gunk from underground in order process it so that it becomes the lifeblood of our economy. We are using oil instead of making better use of wind, solar and renewable energy sources.
I agree with Eric. I’m skeptical of man-made global warming claims for the same reasons as everyone else, but there are plenty of other reasons to stop using oil if we could figure out how. If doing so would also help the GW problem, should there be one, great!
Bottom line, despite all the fuzzy talk and fuzzy math, in order to do what the scientists at the UN believe is necessary is going to require massive coercion. There is no other way. If you believe otherwise you haven’t had a look at the economics.
So, it is small wonder that those who value the freedom they have are instinctively suspicious about a “crisis” that seems to have originated and been magnified over the years out of the far left, the anti-capitalist segment of political thought, regardless of the validity of the evidence.
Thus, as this issue gets pushed into the mainstream, the proponents of action on the recommendations have to put up unequivocal evidence and face the public toe to toe with the “paid” scientists (I suppose the UN crew doesn’t need to eat or pay a mortgage) and show us, in our language, why we must go along.
Otherwise, they have no right to expect us to willingly dive into an economic apocalypse under the watchful eye of totalitarian enforcement. And that is the real scenario. The word from the UN is “just 1% of GDP.” How many people are just one pay-cheque from bankruptcy? We get the stats every once in awhile from those promoting savings and investment. They say that America is a wealthy nation. Yes, but they don’t mention that most of that is paper and little binary bits of electronic ether, and all of that works on one thing, confidence. So they need to give us some confidence because it’s the habits of the masses that sustain this thing we call the economy.
“I see nothing wrong with a Cardinal (or any priest) addressing the issue…”
“…He is well within his rights to speak on the ethics of junk science and hysteria peddling…”
I agree with just about everything the good Cardinal said. I was simply agreeing with another poster that ” …our clergy should be very CAREFUL about treading into areas outside their discipline.” (emphasis mine).
Being careful is not the same as not having the right to speak. I believe Cardinal Pell did a good job.
Here in Wisconsin we just got out of a 20+ day cold snap where temperatures barely got above freezing (and was usually well below it). I am sure that there is something going on with the weather I’m just not sure it is 100% caused by man(cows produce more CO2 then us humans). Also do you REALLY think God will let us destroy his creation? In the end HE is in control.
If that was the iceburg I’m thinking of, it seems a bit dumb to highlight it as a sign that it’s getting colder, when it was calved as part of the melting and breakup of a large ice sheet…
Man-made no.
Man-caused yes.
Climatological chastisements are a very possible reality in the very near future.
Based off of what we know historically– about ancient man hunting wooly mammoths, and about grapes growing in England/Greenland being green, and how the Thymes use to freeze over regularly, it would be most reasonable to assume that climate changes on its own, without our factories, and in both directions from what is current and believed to be the norm.
All in all, looks like the Cardnal’s speach could be shortened greatly: “CHILL OUT! Let’s look at this rationally.”
Most of the alleged experts who are sceptical of climate change are paid by oil companies.
I found Thomas Sowell’s recent essay on the illusory consensus on global warming to be quite interesting. It does seem as though some aspects of the dialog are missing. Take for instance the assertion that Sowell makes that names of scientists were essentially pasted onto the national academy’s report in 2001, even though some absolutely did not want to be associated with it:
“Then there are genuine scientific experts on weather and climate. The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report — or even saw it before it was published.
One of those very distinguished climate scientists — Richard S. Lindzen of MIT — publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that. ”
Want to read more?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=global_hot_air&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=02/13/2007&page=2
BrianC,
Of course God is in control, but he gives us free will and the means to destroy what he created, to the extent that our free will meets with his objectives. Look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc…
The focus needs to be on, how what we do here, translates to what happens for us in the next life, and not what our actions in this life do to the planet…I’m not suggesting that we be poor stewards with what God has given us…but in the end if we lose the entire world, yet gain salvation, then the earth and its contents take on a much diminished importance.
Remember Mark 8:36:
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul.
I think the Cardinal in his article as much as admits his lack of training and knowlege in the area of climate change, but his comments do smack of the prevailing conservative political position in the western world, and I think although perhaps correct in his views, he should devote his time to more Catholic pursuits, lest he cast the impression that most Catholics by association agree with his position.
Do you, if I asked nicely, that Al Gore would pay my $283 SDG&E bill I ran up during the recent January freeze here in sunny SoCal?
Yes indeed, caution should be used in citing scripture written 2000 years ago in reference to a possible contemporary climate issue:
e.g. Matt 24:3-9 see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb064.html for similar passages. Some NT scholars doubt its divine authencity. Ditto for Luke 21: 25-28 http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb002.html
One of my first clues as to whether science is actually junk science is when prescriptions are made before anything has been proven. All of the ‘global warming’ hype is always attached at the hip to myriad big government ‘solutions’ and infringement of freedoms. As far as being a big business, big oil has got nothin’ on big environmentalism. It is a complete racket. And the venom and retributions flung at SCIENTISTS who, even slightly, disagree with the GW mantra should be of grave concern to anybody who values the freedom to think and speak independently. To illustrate, Google the search “george taylor oregon state climatologist” and read about how a scientist is being run out of town on a rail by a Stalinist (I don’t use that term lightly) governor (who has NO science background) because Mr. Taylor refuses to drink the kool-aid.
I think the clergy absolutely has not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY to address religious questions. Make no mistake, GW is a religion to these people. It is their faith and they are preaching it to YOUR children. Their saviors are mass transit, higher taxes, ridding the world of SUVs, higher taxes, ethanol, higher taxes, ‘green energy,’ higher taxes, letting the UN run our lives, and…oh yeah, don’t forget, higher taxes.
We pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops. Now we are going to pay them those same subsidies AND subsidies for growing corn for ethanol. Guess what? Every inch of arable ground between the Atlantic and Pacific is going to be sprouting subsidized corn. Gee, now there is a glut of corn and a bushel of carrots will cost you a fortune. So I guess we need to start paying farmers to grow carrots…and the cycle continues. Who wins? The Democrat politicians who will need to run on one issue…”I promise to keep the subsidies flowing.”
What’s really amazing is that the “Global Warmingist” cult members want us to get all worked up and destroy whole national economies and increase human poverty and suffering — for what? For the sake of preventing the earth from getting a milder, more enjoyable climate.
Not that there’s any way to tell what the earth’s climate will be like in 50 to 100 years. It’s all guesswork and “computer models” — numbers pulled out of some CPU’s rear end. The Global Warmingist cult members have more faith in an alleged consensus of alleged scientists predicting a climatological apocalypse in 100 years than they would have in an eight-day forecast of their local weatherman.
So Bob you’d acknowledge then that the Cardinal’s comments are political? That’s my concern…that the Cardinal makes unqualified comments about a topic he’s not likely any better schooled in than you or I, and by association or reference the rest of us Catholics get lumped in with his unqualified opinion. Better the Cardinal refine his public comments to something he’s actually qualified to discuss…otherwise he’s really no better than that gaffe, Sean Penn, lending his name to the anti-military – no WMD’s argument…blah blah blah
But when the Cardinal points out the religious aspect to the belief (and any science based exclusively on computer modeling requires faith at the onset) he’s talking well within his arena. There’s a real crisis of identity among the scientific community who so desperately need to believe something they can’t prove. It’s irrational behavior that has prompted anti-rational actions.
Michael Crichton’s speech on the root of these trends is a very good read. Check it out…
Aliens Cause Global Warming
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
There’s a lot of grant money for scientists who promote global-warming orthodoxy; none for heterodoxy.
Mike Petrik –
About the Anonymous poster’s comment:
His comments above are precisely why the Church should be very careful about its forays into politics.
as well as yours:
…but I agree with the prior poster that our clergy should be very careful about treading into areas outside their discipline. If we’re patient, good science will eventually win out over bad science, whichever way that cuts.
I believe even clergy have the right, not in their official capacity, that is; but, certainly, as an individual (and as a citizen) to voice their opinions on these issues. Are we to say, then, that just because they’re clergy, they are not entitled to have their opinions on such matters when, in fact, they are, in addition to being clergy, citizens of their country and, as such, have a responsibility to weigh in on these matters? Are we, then, going to take away from them their individual right as a citizen and remove them from fulfilling their civil duties (e.g., voting in elections — which would actually require them to have such an opinion as it is a responsibility on their part as a citizen) just because they are clergy?
In fact, even though his opinion may have been one airing a certain skepticisim in the matter, he, at the very least, mentioned the following:
I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all.
Caine, you make an intelligent point about the Cardinal infusing a religious slant on the GW theme, but you do not support your point with any mention of where in the article the Cardinal might have offered such a religious or theology based analysis. I read the article and, other than mentioning Noah, and in paragraph four of the article a brief refutation that we as Christians are not an unreasonable lot, see no other religious or theological arguments presented by the Cardinal…just the Cardinal offering his unqualified opinions about GW. I also wouldn’t agree with you and some of the other posters, that the Cardinal offers a view that is reasonably reserved and neutral on the issue of GW…his opening comments, such as references to Global Warming Doomsdayers and Zealots seem to spell that out quite plainly. Again I’m not saying that I disagree with the Cardinal in his analysis about GW…I think the jury is still out…but the Cardinal’s comments are quite obviously politically biased toward the more conserative camp, and if proven wrong make the Cardinal, and by implication Catholics, conervative Christinas, and the Church, look unecessarily foolish and premature. I think unqualified comments like his are best left in discussion groups, and outside the scope of the printed or electronic media, unless as you suggest, they include a well reasoned Church response to the GW phenomena.
Esau,
The Cardinal’s article does not identify him by some pseudonym (e.g. Publius, or some other fictional character), the article identifies his as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. If I were you, I might try to differentiate between the Cardinal’s rights as a free human to publish his opinions, and his duties to the Church to publish cautiously for the sake of the Church. The Cardinal lent his name to the article, and implicates the by identification, the Church in his rhetoric. He ought to have been a bit more cautious.
Tim J.:
Ditto what Mike Petrik said.
From somebody as wise and civic-minded as you are, I was surprised that you actually agreed with Mike on this.
In the same vein as my above comments — the clergy, in addition to being members of the Church, are also citizens of their country, and, therefore, have a responsibility as such to weigh in on these issues (not in their officialy capacity perhaps) but as responsible citizens. If people feel so strongly about narrowing the liberties of the clergy as citizens so that they can only act as mere clergy, then we might as well take away some of their rights as citizens (such as the right to vote and such) and remove them from their civic duties.
The Cardinal’s article does not identify him by some pseudonym (e.g. Publius, or some other fictional character), the article identifies his as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church.
Anon:
Do you mean to tell me, then, that he should have voiced his opinion under a fake name, such as “Mr. Teletubby” or some pseudonym?
How about Protestant ministers who similarly voice out their personal opinions on matters and are identified as “Reverend” or “Pastor” of such-and-such Church??? Of course, they need to be identified as being thus just like a person who is a DOCTOR is referred to with the designation “Dr.”! Now, are you telling me that just because a “Dr. So-and-So” advocates certain personal insights on various political issues that his opinion suddenly becomes the general opinion of the Medical Community???
Logical, Esau. In both posts.
Logical, Esau. In both posts. do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church and are my own.”
Thanks, bill912.
Sometimes, to quiet such protests, perhaps the clergy might want to advertise some sort of legal disclaimer:
“My personal views as
But, even then, there may be folks out there who might say “What arrogance!” and even accuse them of being self-important.
Oops… the “insert” didn’t take.
That should have read:
“My personal views as (insert sacred office here — e.g., Cardinal, Pope) do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church and are my own.”
Well, we know that the bravest and most honorable way to opine is anonymously.
(the sarcasm drips…)
We’ve been here before.
All this talk of scientists being the only ones “qualified” to judge the veracity of global warming smacks of clericalism; and we all know where clericalism has gotten the Church.
Yes, but global cooling was Yesterday’s Trend. Global warming is Today’s Trend, and, therefore, is to be followed because it is Today’s. The past is so…well…passe.
Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!
This is the best line of the piece.
Realist:
Some NT scholars doubt its divine authencity
Realist, I thought that your big point here was that there wasn’t *any* divine authenticity to Christianity. Has this changed?
BillyHW:
I agree with you!
It not only cracked me up, but rings true too!
I’ve got to say, I rather like Cardinal Pell. When I saw a Raymond Arroyo interview with him, he seemed to me a rather practical individual with decent common sense. His handling of the scandals in Australia is an example of a certain wisdom demonstrated on his part, unlike that (or, I should say, the lack thereof) of the clergy here in America.
I look forward to seeing how World Youth Day finally takes shape in Australia and his accomplishments to that end.
Esau et al,
I would have been perfectly comfortable with the Cardinal’s statement if it had been accompanied by a disclaimer of the type Esau hypothesized.
When the managing partner of a major national law firm wrote an op-ed piece in a major newspaper regarding the importance of legalizing gay marriage he was criticized by his partners, and rightly so — not for publically expressing his view (which is his right of course), but for allowing himself to be described as the managing partner of that firm. Partners felt that clients or others could misinterpret the MP’s piece as speaking for the partnership, which was not true. I think the analogy applies here as well.
I thought his speech was astoundingly clear. It was personal opinion, open to correction.
It is his job to quell the fears of his sheep when they come running to him screaming, ” The sky is fallling.” Also the Global Warming theory *looks like* another secular push for the overrearching importance of the god of science. Cardinal Pell is quietly, carefully and solidly pushing back.
Mike Petrik:
Please refer to my Feb 22, 2007 10:09:34 AM post:
How about Protestant ministers who similarly voice out their personal opinions on matters and are identified as “Reverend” or “Pastor” of such-and-such Church??? Of course, they need to be identified as being thus just like a person who is a DOCTOR is referred to with the designation “Dr.”! Now, are you telling me that just because a “Dr. So-and-So” advocates certain personal insights on various political issues that his opinion suddenly becomes the general opinion of the Medical Community???
Now, when you say:
I would have been perfectly comfortable with the Cardinal’s statement if it had been accompanied by a disclaimer of the type Esau hypothesized.
Then, everybody identified as “Dr. so-and-so of USC Medical” or “Rev. Jake of First Baptist Church”, etc; should also carry similar disclaimers (like “Dr. so-and-so’s view do not reflect that of the Medical community” or “Rev. Jake’s opinion do not reflect that of the Baptist community”)! But, can’t you see just how ridiculous that will become?
By the way, when a headline reads something like:
“Rev. so-and-so of First Community church of Springfield says that measure 112 is wrong because yada-yada-yada”
Are there any such protests? Generally, no.
But, when you have:
“Cardinal so-and-so of Springfield says that measure 112 is wrong because yada-yada-yada”
There is usually such outroar and the common protestation: “How dare they impose their beliefs and views on us!”
Further:
You do know that if you actually feel that such the clergy’s views on certain matters shouldn’t be voiced at all (and their rights as citizens should be silenced), then the clergy’s views on ABORTION should likewise be SILENCED since it can also be deemed of being political in nature as well! Thus, you give credence to (as well as promote) secular society who views such things likewise!
Esau,
“From somebody as wise and civic-minded as you are, I was surprised that you actually agreed with Mike on this.”
You might want to re-read my second post carefully. I agree that the Cardinal has every right to speak. I agree with what he, in fact, said. AND I agree that clergy should be CAREFUL about weighing in on issues like GW, simply because some people like to take the private statements of members of the Catholic clergy and and present them as representing all Catholics, or even representing Church teaching.
On the off chance that Cardinal Pell turns out to be wrong on the issue (which I doubt, but no matter) there would be no shortage of people rushing to use his statements as “evidence” of the Churh’s anti-scientific bias, or intellectual backwardness, or some such nonsense.
Again, he has every right to speak his mind. I believe he is actually correct on both GW and the political and media hysteria surrounding it. All I’m saying is… be careful.
Mike Petrik:
In other words — you are neglecting the rights of the Clergy as citizens apart from their roles as clergy. But, even further, you have cast such prejudice on members of the clergy, demanding that such a legal disclaimer be placed on their opinions. To demonstrate, allow me to ask then: do you also demand similar treatment on doctors, nurses, dentists, protestant ministers, engineers, scientists, etc.; that their views do not reflect the views of the Medical Community, the Dental Community, the Protestant Community, the Association for Engineers, the Scientific Community, etc.???
“Mom Nature” is in many ways “self-controlling” in order to keep a “steady state” over time. i.e. when it is warm, we burn less fossil fuel and thereby produce less carbon dioxide, plants are more numerous and grow faster and therefore absorb more carbon dioxide. As the carbon dioxide level falls, the earth cools and we burn more fossil fuel and plants grow slower. And the cycle repeats itself.
Father Ray Brown, NT exegete, appears to give Matthew 24:3-9 a thumbs up. Ditto for Luke 21: 25-28 for historic Jesus authenticity.
Esau, why do you feel the need to use bold text and italics so much? It’s distracting and annoying and any emphasis you hope to make on your various points is lost by your overuse of these features.
Esau, why do you feel the need to use bold text and italics so much?
Unfortunately, I have no other method of highlighting the more substantive points therein.
I wish there was an html code that would allow for a yellow highlighting feature instead which would be ideal for accomplishing exactly that; however, I do not know of any.
Ok there is definetly something strange about the weather. Today 50 Saturday 6+ inches of snow!
Esau,
the problem with your rhetoric is not that there’s no yellow highlight feature, but that you want to highlight half of what you say. Your points are not made more forcefully by highlighting them. I agree that it’s distracting and annoying and makes me want to skip many of your posts.
Read the preface to Mere Christianity where C.S. Lewis discusses the undesirability of using even italics in writing prose. Excessive italics, bold, capitals, etc. weaken your effectiveness as a writer instead of enhancing it.
Let your words speak for themselves.
MBS:
You have every right to skip my posts.
They merely contain my thoughts on the matter, nothing more.
Thanks for the charitable advise though! =^)
I just wonder why GW, whatever its cause, is portrayed as a moral issue. It seems to me to be an engineering problem. I mean besides leftists trying to use GW as a way to institute socialism, no one (even GW proponents) is suggesting the oceans will rise tomorrow, or even on any one particular day.
It seems that lacking a belief in God, many decide “the planet”, or even just their own existence is “god” and so all issues are moral issues. Like the freaking salmon, or obesity, or… Global Climate Change.
These are all tradeoffs – global warming, the consequences, and the costs of accomodating those consequences vs. the cost of the proferred solutions… seems like a no brainer… the costs of Kyoto are extravagant even by UN standards and wouldn’t actually do anything about the problem – other than give the UN and some NGOs and various “states” control over more of our economies and lives. That sounds like fun, huh?
Seed time and harvest, says the Bible, will last until the end–global warming?? We need to be good stewards of our “gifts” but, in the end, God is in control.
Mike E– it becomes a moral issue when they want to make laws based on the theory. Although a lot of folks *do* treat it as religion.
While all of the points made above are fascinating, I think that a MAJOR point is:
“An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to “holocaust deniers”.”
FOLLOWED BY:
“A local newspaper editorial’s complaint about the doomsdayers’ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity. ”
The Cardinal is well within his rights to call for everyone to “chill out”. The wording that is being used is incredibly inflammatory and the tone is starting to become anti-Christian. IMO – it is dangerously anti-free speech.
When mainstream Christianity gets smeared, we need a strong Defender out there. Thank you Cardinal Pell!
One additional thought on this…
If, as many in the combox have suggested, the clergy should stay within the realm of religion/theology and not make public statements/comments on political or scientific issues about which they have no formal training, then it would seem to be a logical conclusion that no priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope should comment on abortion unless he is a physician with a specialization in obstetrics. All political issues can be boiled down to moral issues and, therefore, be further reduced to religious/theological issues.
When you toss aside all of Al Gore’s colorful graphs and Photoshopped doomsday satellite imagery, what you come down to is this:
1. Is it moral to forcibly strip the freedom, and therefore the God-given dignity, of another human on the basis of an idea that is not just unproven, but seriously questioned by experts?
2. Is it moral to threaten a person with the loss of their livlihood and possible imprisonment for simpy questioning the methodology or the conclusions of another?
3. Is it moral to forcibly take from one person and give to another?
4. Is it moral to tell blatant lies to people in order to manipulate them into doing what you want or living the way in which you wish them to live?
This is most certainly a theological issue.
Sailorette,
I think I misspoke (mistyped?). I certainly understand that it might be a moral issue to stop a government from making bad laws that will harm people, based on bad science or theory.
What I meant was that the Climate Change, uh… enthusiasts(?) seem to think that GW is a moral issue in and of itself. That’s where all the heated rhetoric is coming from. Solving the problem is insufficient – the source of the problem must be eradicated. You don’t see the same moral outrage from these people about issues with very much more obvious moral dimensions like… oh, I don’t know… AIDS?
To them, solving AIDS is a medical problem to be attacked by medical professionals, so that everyone can get on with life, without addressing the cause of AIDS. This is the exact position many have on GW. Solve the “problem” of the consequences, and move on.
Yes, I know that there is a moral “issue” (or issues) attached to the AIDS problem, but it’s not handled (especially by the political left) the same as GW.
In mind, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a warming earth; the consequences of that may be very real, and we may have a moral responsibility to address those problems, but the warming itself… not so much.
“many in the combox have suggested, the clergy should stay within the realm of religion/theology and not make public statements/comments on political or scientific issues about which they have no formal training”
Who suggested that?
Bob,
You continue to miss the point…I don’t think the folks here who are taking a position somewhat contrary to yours are saying that a religious figure can’t comment on political or scientific issues, particularly if that religious figure were to frame his comments in a religious or theological context. As Tim states above, “Who suggested that?”
Try to comprehend that what we are saying is, the Cardinal in this instance does not juxtapose a theological or religious argument into a discussion of any facet of GW in THIS article. The Cardinal mentions Noah briefly, and faith in paragraph four of his commentary, but he does not offer a theological or religious analysis of the GW phenomenon. He offers an ostensibly unqualified scientific analysis, on a controversial topic that the jury is clearly not yet in on, and where frankly he could in his analysis, be right or wrong. He also punctuates his comments with verbiage that could only be characterized as hostile to the GW believers out there, and only feints at an attempt to remain politically neutral in his comments.
Therefore, his comments as we read them may only be construed as a very Catholic, politically laced, scientific opinion, rendered by a non-science qualified, high-level representative of the Catholic Church…and this is where the Cardinal’s discretion in making his comments comes into question. If you re-read the Cardinal’s article, and can get a grip on what it is that we are saying, I think this might clear matters up for you. Good luck!
I think the world of Cardinal Pell, and I happen to be somewhat sympathetic to his GW skepicism. I also agree with John.
Cardinal Pell should be cautious in how he presents his own personal views on scientific matters, just as Cardinal Mahoney should on economic matters. As someone trained in economics I was embarrassed by the American bishops pastoral letter issued in the 1980s, in which they clearly crossed the line into prudential matters based on their own misunderstandings with regards to how market economies work. Similarly, while all Catholics should be concerned for the poor, Catholic clergy should be cautious about how they express views on the minimum wage. Most economists believe that raising the minimum wage actually hurts the very people that such changes are intended to help. But the lack of unanimity in this respect, even among trained economists, certainly indicates that we do no know for certain; and bishops should be cautious about expressing views on the matter because Catholic faithful understandably consider their bishops to speak with some degree of authority on matters they publically address. Good Catholics may favor an increased minimum wage, or not; just as good Catholics may believe in GW, or not. Bishops need to appreciate that Catholics assume that their public pronouncements are related to faith or morals, and they take seriously, and should take seriously, the statements contained in such pronouncements.
Plainly, I’m a poor speller and proofer.
This is most certainly a theological issue.
Bob,
I don’t think it’s actually a theological issue so much that it is an individual issue.
Further, about your comment:
If, as many in the combox have suggested, the clergy should stay within the realm of religion/theology and not make public statements/comments on political or scientific issues about which they have no formal training
If you actually reviewed some of mine, I had stressed over and over again the fact that the clergy has every right to weigh in on such issues as a citizen of their respective country (as it is the civic duty and right of every citizen) apart from their official role as clergy.
However, I do find that your tying this with some sort of theological mandate disturbing.
Let me say plainly that I believe that the clergy should have every right to speak their minds, not only as a citizen, but also as their own individual. I mean, are we to say, then, that just because they’re clergy, we should remove from them certain rights as that of free speech?.
Yet, we should not confuse their opinions as being the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
For example, if the Pope were to say that the Yankees are God’s gift to the world and, accordingly, deserve to win the World Series; are we to, then, take this opinion as Official Church decree? Or, to come from another perspective and reiterate here my original point, are we to prohibit the Pope’s right to have such an opinion?
These are the things, I believe, that are at issue: the civil liberties of the clergy and their official role as clergy.
Shattered Consensus is a book by scientists who are in the field which documents there is no consensus among scientists in the field of climatology. As for scientists supported by industry, Exxon is not a terrorist group, and other scientists should look at the research instead of attacking the source. On the other hand, the UN is filled with countries who are not free and have a reason to hate the United States. Look at who heads the UN committee on Human Rights! Non profit environmental groups live by donations and also have a reason to profit from alarmist reports. Even if there was a consensus about global warming, that doesn’t mean it is true or that we should drastically change our lifestyle, a way of life that has resulted in drastically cleaner air, more food grown on less land, and more trees, in the US at least, than 100 years ago. There was a consensus among scientists about ulcers being caused by lifestyle and stress until several years ago. That consensus was wrong. There is so much name calling,arrogance, and appeal to authority without wanting to do the research among the alarmists that we should all be cautious.
Good points, austin. Consensus is not science; in fact, consensus is anti-science. Science is based on fact. If every scientist in the world stated that the sun revolves around the earth, that would be consensus, but it would not be science.
Tim J –
To answer your question…these are copied directly from comments above:
our clergy should be very careful about treading into areas outside their discipline.
and I think although perhaps correct in his views, he should devote his time to more Catholic pursuits, lest he cast the impression that most Catholics by association agree with his position.
That’s my concern…that the Cardinal makes unqualified comments about a topic he’s not likely any better schooled in than you or I…
Better the Cardinal refine his public comments to something he’s actually qualified to discuss…
I think unqualified comments like his are best left in discussion groups, and outside the scope of the printed or electronic media…
The above comment is mine…forgot to enter my name…
I tire unto death of attitudes like ‘the clergy should be very careful…” It is not like we’ are highly regarded when we are speaking within our disciplines. Nor do those without degrees in theology, morality, sytematics, Scripture, and Canon Law have any problem with opining in public about those issues. How many have opined about GW in this blog? How many are meterologists or scientist? Anyone who has done research into the stories out there about GW knows that the data is far from conclusive about its causes. It is becoming , though, another secular dogma, akin to evolution, that is taken as absolute fact when the jury is still out on both and there are holes big enough to fly a 767 through in both theories. Both have gnostic tendancies, prevelant in the secularist worldview, were humanity is at best a happy accident (at worst an unfortunate abberation) and is the root cause for all evil in this world. Only secular hubris, as egomaniacal as it is, can assume we are the cause of this round of GW. If GW had never happened before then there might be truth to this, but the warming and cooling of this planet is, by most accounts in science, a cyclical event that pre-dates the industrialization of Western societies. Are we helping the situation of GW with our uses of fossil fuels? Who knows? Should we limit them for the sake of cleaner air? Yes we should. But I guess I should be quiet because I’m a cleric and not a scientist.
Remember when science was scientific? It seems that one of the side effects of the relevatisization of our culture is that science has become an utterly meaningless pursuit.
If there is no objective right or wrong, then who are we to criticize either camp on the GW issue?
On that note, I would like to remind the smug endarkened atheists that this standard comes from a supernatural understanding of the universe and not a personal and subjective one. They cry to the rafters about the “dangers” of faith in public life all the while leading society into an era of profound blindness. Even Galileo had the benefit of objective truth, if he wanted. But the relativists have de-evolved our culture into one where scientists are mere children engaging in self-aggrandizing and political finger-pointing and whining.
Regardless of your views on GW, our dependence on good science for stability and survival makes our current state of affairs a frightening one indeed.
Good points, Stubblespark!
But, in the end, for those who merely rely on Science for the “Be All, End of All”; you cannot deny the fact that even that can be classified as a sort of faith, regardless of the athiests who deny and say the contrary.
The only difference between the athiest who regard Science as such a faith and the one who regard Christianity as the faith is that the latter is a faith well-placed and is founded on Truth while the former cannot have existed in the first place without the Prime Mover that is exposed in the latter.
FR RP –
I didn’t say, and don’t believe that clergy should be quiet and not speak their minds on whatever topic they like.
It’s just that, if I am wrong, well, that’s not going to cause anyone to use my words to smear the Church.
All I said was that, because of the position of authority they occupy, the clergy need to be more careful than lay people in voicing their opinions on controversial topics not directly related to the faith.
“More careful” doesn’t mean silent.
For the record, laypeople need to be careful TOO.
That’s my concern…that the Cardinal makes unqualified comments about a topic he’s not likely any better schooled in than you or I…
Better the Cardinal refine his public comments to something he’s actually qualified to discuss…
Folks, I hope everybody here is happy that AL BORE (I mean, Gore), who, I guess, is “qualified” to discuss GW — even though Gore, himself, is neither a scientist or meterologist; actually won an Academy Award last night for his, I guess, “expert” take on GW! As I’ve stated before in a past thread, I guess his notoriety might also be due to his actually inventing the Internet as well!
Esau,
Do you realize that in your last post, you have only 8 words that are not highlighted?
Actually Al Gore didn’t win anything. Davis Guggenheim won for best documentary.
If Davis Guggenheim did a documentary on the Da Vinci Code and won an oscar, it still would not have made the subject of the film true.
If GW turns out to be junk science then we may be able to nominate Al Gore for Best Actor!
Esau,
Do you realize that in your last post, you have only 8 words that are not highlighted?
Look Anon and MBS:
IF there is anything amiss and wrong in my posts, then flat out refute them instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks merely as a diversion due to the fact that you are unable to contend with the points illustrated therein!
Pseudomodo:
The fact of the matter is that there are those here who say that the clergy should not speak about things that are beyond their discipline or academic training.
Yet:
Who is Al Gore that many should look up to him as an expert on such matters when he also does not possess such credentials as well?
Further, Anon:
In spite of your sarcastic ad hominem attack, there is a method to my highlighted (i.e., bolded) approach in that the more important points which I’d like to stress are accentuated accordingly whereas the terms that are of particular significance in these are respectively italicized.
Again, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, should there be anything you should find wrong in my conclusions, attack the contents of the arguments and not the one who is actually putting forth such argument.
Again:
To those who would say that that the clergy should not speak about things that are beyond their discipline or academic training —
Just who is Al Gore that many should look up to him as an expert on such matters when he also does not possess such credentials as well?
Esau
The Church speaks on the issue of stem cell research not because of thier expertise in embriology, physiology, etc. but because they object to people being murdered.
The Church speaks on issues of global warming not because of thier expertise in earth sciences, environment and climatology but because they simply asked the same questions they asked Galileo – where is the science?
Galileo responded by suggesting that the church was run by idiots, but the fact remains that almost all of his explanations on his copernican system turned out to be wrong and the one that turned out to be correct was the notion of stellar paralax, a proof that took a couple more centuries to prove! Galileo could not prove it in his era.
The Holy see is more than qualified to comment on a wide range of social and scientific activities by virtue of the fact that many of it’s clergy are in fact scientists with impecable careers in a number of fields. Add to this the fact that the Holy See is one of the most well advised organizations in the world due in large part through the efforst of the Pontifical Academy of Science that boasts over 80 distinguished scholars including almost 40 Nobel Prize winners in the 20th century.
These people advise the Pope on a wide range of issues including scientific ones. When the Holy Father or any Bishop wants to know the facts on a particular issue they don’t have to ask Al Gore!!
Pseudomodo:
I think we are talking past each other here.
As I’ve reiterated time and again in my previous posts:
1. The clergy has every right to weigh in on such issues as a citizen of their respective country (as it is the civic duty and right of every citizen) apart from their official role as clergy.
2. The clergy should have every right to speak their minds, not only as a citizen, but also as their own individual. I mean, are we to say, then, that just because they’re clergy, we should remove from them certain rights as that of free speech?
In other words:
I just don’t see how there are actually people out there who seem to think that Al Gore has every right to speak his mind on these issues while our clergy do not!
Also, I might add, Gore has no such credentials to make him an expert on these matters any more than those of our clergy who may not as well!
By the way, to people out there, there is the Pontifical Academy of Science which some Catholics, I’m afraid, are not even aware of, which gives scientific consult on such matters (and, actually, engages in scientific research)!
Esau,
Perhaps I have misread something.
You said “The fact of the matter is that there are those here who say that the clergy should not speak about things that are beyond their discipline or academic training.”
Are you including yourself in the “those here” category or not? If not then I apologize and redirect my argument to the “those here”.
Did you know that freedom of speech is not compatible with Church doctrine?
Nothing to see here. Just move along.
Esau,
You misunderstand me. I do not disagree with the subject of your posts. It is because I largely agree with them that I wish you would make them more readable.
They are painful to the eyes. Really.
there is a method to my highlighted (i.e., bolded) approach in that the more important points which I’d like to stress are accentuated accordingly whereas the terms that are of particular significance in these are respectively italicized.
My point is that your “method” is not effective, and is in fact counterproductive. When pretty much everything is bolded and highlighted, it simply hurts to read it.
We presume that when you say something, that you think it is important or you wouldn’t be saying it. There is no need to highlight, italicize or bold 90% of what you do, and your points would be much more effectively made if you would scale it back.
For what it is worth.
(Take a look through some of the more persuasive posters on this site, and try to learn something from them. They don’t get carried away with that stuff, and neither should you. Substantively you have some good stuff to say. Really.)
Conforms to Pseudomodo’s Law:
For every Expert there is an equal but opposite Expert. Good scientific method 😉
Free speech presupposes truth (or at least pious opinion). It may not necessarily cover error which always comes with a price tag.
Here ye, here ye! The first infallible encyclical of the His Holiness, Pope Anonanaes Anonosi I, titled “Did You Know?,” states that freedom of speech is not compatible with Church doctrine!
You said “The fact of the matter is that there are those here who say that the clergy should not speak about things that are beyond their discipline or academic training.”
Pseudomodo:
I was merely posting the previous comments somebody had made which I normally do prior to my actual comments.
Again, you may need to re-read my posts on this thread.
The summary of my posts boils down to what I had just said:
1. The clergy has every right to weigh in on such issues as a citizen of their respective country (as it is the civic duty and right of every citizen — including clergy) apart from their official role as clergy.
2. The clergy should have every right to speak their minds, not only as a citizen, but also as their own individual. I mean, are we to say, then, that just because they’re clergy, we should remove from them certain rights as that of free speech?
In other words:
I just don’t see how there are actually people out there who seem to think that Al Gore has every right to speak his mind on these issues while our clergy do not!
Also, I might add, Gore has no such credentials to make him an expert on these matters any more than those of our clergy who may not as well!
By the way, to people out there, there is the Pontifical Academy of Science which some Catholics, I’m afraid, are not even aware of, which gives scientific consult on such matters (and, actually, engages in scientific research)!
But it is true.
Just that it has not been challanged in a while.
Freedom of speech does not censor evil.
Only Truth has a right to be proclaimed.
Take a look through some of the more persuasive posters on this site, and try to learn something from them.
Thanks, Anon for the advice.
I think I neglected to mention that I also use it as a means to retrace points I’ve made in an earlier post so that instead of re-reading the entire content of my past posts, I could just jump down to the bolded comments.
I apologize for the eye-sore though and, again, I appreciate the advice.
Although I wished I could write as magnificently as C.S. Lewis, his talent is not mine and I can only be who I am.
God bless!
Substantively you have some good stuff to say. Really.
Anon,
Thanks for the compliment; however, I really wished it were me.
Quite honestly, if it weren’t for our Lord, I don’t know where I’d be both academically and professionally in my life. God’s the reason why I’m where I’m at in my life. I know it’s cliche, but, regardless, it’s true!
God bless!
Hey Esau,
Where did ya learn your stuff?
No judging here, but did you go to the seminary?
No judging here, but did you go to the seminary?
Where’d you get that from?
“there are those here who say that the clergy should not speak about things that are beyond their discipline”
Not me!
BOLD OFF! AGAIN!
Quoted from some distance above:
Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans, glaciers and ice caps show unequivocally that the Earth is warming, according to the first global assessment of climate change science in six years.
The report confirms that the observed increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1750 is the result of human activities.
This is a fine example of the rhetorical technique that I have called the Double Half-Truth. Take two statements, each factual in itself but meaningless outside of context, and then cement them together as if they belonged in the same context. Most people will think they are logically related, and few will be perceptive enough to notice the cement.
Yes, the Earth is growing warmer. (So are Jupiter and Mars, and so, in fact, is the Sun. I have never heard a proponent of anthropogenic global warming address these facts.) And yes, the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased since 1750. But these two facts are not logically connected. They may not even be causally connected. And indeed, the article does not say that they are connected; it merely presents them one after the other, knowing that the average reader is careless and will assume that they are connected. This allows the author of the article to tell a whopping big lie of omission while preserving what politicians call ‘plausible deniability’.
In the hope of clarifying what I mean, here’s a Double Half-Truth of my own invention:
George W. Bush has a history of sending his country to war against the wishes of the United Nations. In 1998, the President ordered a major military operation in Kosovo without UN approval.
Both statements are true. To a gullible reader they might appear to be related, so that President Bush would seem to have a track record of flouting the UN going back to 1998. But of course the President who ordered the Kosovo operation was Bill Clinton.
In the same way, the principal greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere is not carbon dioxide, but water vapour. The IPCC model assumes that the concentration of water vapour (or, rather, the magnitude of its greenhouse effect, which is not quite the same thing) increases linearly with the concentration of carbon dioxide. This is an unproved assumption and there are good reasons for doubting it. If you make this assumption, you can account for almost all the observed warming by the burning of fossil fuels. But if you do, you lose the ability to explain the warming of the other planets during the same period. It seems quite likely that the Sun is causing more of the observed warming than we are. If so, the earth would go on warming up even if we stopped burning fossil fuels altogether, and the political agenda of the radical Greens will cripple the world economy without improving the world’s climate.
In short, the science has not all been done. It may not be done anytime soon, because those same Greens are determined to stop all research that might undermine their political position. So, to return to our muttons, Cardinal Pell is quite right to advise caution and warn people against believing predictions of imminent doom.
Is he right to do so with his cardinal’s hat on? I don’t think he has any choice. If he were speaking as an anonymous citizen, he would not be heard. His remarks were reported in the press because he was a cardinal: his hat is what makes him newsworthy in the eyes of the media.
Of course some members of the media (and probably most radical Greens) want to make political capital out of the idea that the Cardinal is speaking outside his area of expertise. But the fact that he is a clergyman does not prove that he is uninformed about science. Nor does it mean that he speaks for the Church. But by another application of the Double Half-Truth, the media can make it appear that he is speaking ex cathedra and from a position of scientific ignorance. They can follow this up by telling their usual lies about Galileo, and I have no doubt some of them will.
Jay! Good to see you comment, my friend! Hope things are going well for you…
Jimmy,
I think that based upon the UN panel’s report* on the dire prediction of rising seas from global warming that the return of Christ is sooner that we think. The can be verified by St. Malachy’s prediction that there is only one pope to follow Pope Benedict XVI and Luke 21:25.
In Christ,
Mike O’Connell
St. Gregory the Great Parish
Chicago
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap//ap_on_sc/climate_change_conference