At last, an Honest Broker on Climate Change: Pope Francis I

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,808
Last edited:
Last edited:
Several people have tried in the past to be honest brokers between climate science, emissions policy makers and deniers of human caused global warming.

All have failed, and ended up being seen as divisive and partisan, accused of being either a fossil fuel shill, or a "watermelon" (green on the outside, red on the inside).

No one has gained the public trust 100%, though majorities in all countries that have polling accept that

  • the planet is indeed warming up
  • the warming is mainly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from combustion of fossil fuel like coal and oil.
  • there is a need to limit emissions, and ultimately reduce drastically the amount of carbon combustion in the global economy.

Now, an apolitical non-scientist is about to enter the fray: Pope Francis I is about to make a morally authoritative statement on climate change, pointing out that it hurts the poor and needy most of all. Advised by a core group of top world scientists, the Pope's Encyclical will embrace the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and call on policy-makers to seriously take further steps to limit carbon emissions.

Recently, the G7 talked about a de-carbonised world, and this is another significant call in the year of a critical conference to decide emissions limitation.

Pope to urge swift action on global warming - BBC News

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Stalin once asked "How many divisions has the Pope?". The Papacy has no military divisions, only moral authority. Will the words of Pope Francis shift the log jam, and accelerate the ending of dependence on fossil fuels? Will future historians see this Pope's role in climate politics as we see Pope John Paul's role in ending the Cold War?
 


Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Last edited:
Last edited:
Several people have tried in the past to be honest brokers between climate science, emissions policy makers and deniers of human caused global warming.

All have failed, and ended up being seen as divisive and partisan, accused of being either a fossil fuel shill, or a "watermelon" (green on the outside, red on the inside).

No one has gained the public trust 100%, though majorities polled in nearly all countries that have polling accept that

  • the planet is indeed warming up
  • the warming is mainly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from combustion of fossil fuel like coal and oil.
  • there is a need to limit emissions, and ultimately reduce drastically the amount of carbon combustion in the global economy.

Now, an apolitical non-scientist is about to enter the fray: Pope Francis I is about to make a morally authoritative statement on climate change, pointing out that it hurts the poor and needy most of all. Advised by a core group of top world scientists, the Pope's Encyclical will embrace the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and call on policy-makers to seriously take further steps to limit carbon emissions.

Recently, the G7 talked about a de-carbonised world, and this is another significant call in the year of a critical conference to decide emissions limitation.

Pope to urge swift action on global warming - BBC News

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Stalin once asked "How many divisions has the Pope?". The Papacy has no military divisions, only moral authority. Will
the word of Pope Francis shift the log jam, and accelerate the ending of dependence on fossil fuels? Will future historians see this Pope's role in climate politics as we see Pope John Paul's role in ending the Cold War?


Merge or zoo

You know when Owed starts promoting an "honest broker" you are talking about anything but.

From the encyclical

For poor countries, the priority should be the eradication of poverty and social development of their inhabitants; at the same time the scandalous level of consumption of certain privileged sectors of their population must be considered and better counter corruption. Of course, they must also develop less polluting forms energy production, but for this they have need to rely on help from countries that are grown much at the expense of pollution today the planet. The direct exploitation of abundant solar energy requires that you establish mechanisms and subsidies so that developing countries can have access to technology transfer, for technical assistance and financial resources, but always paying attention to concrete conditions, since the compatibility of the systems with the context for which they are proposed is not always properly assessed. The costs would be low when compared to risk of climate change. In any case, it is above all an ethical choice, based on solidarity of all peoples.
Translation.


"Forcing poor countries to use 'renewable' energy will only impoverish them more, so western countries need to give them lots of money to invest in unnecessary and extremely expensive and unrealiable forms of energy."


Nice one Popey, or should the be Popeye.


Here's an idea. Let's help them build cheaper and more reliable and durable fossil fuel electricity generating capacity and supporting supply grids.

Less money - more poverty alleviation.


Or we can go with the plan from self-proclaimed mouth peace of the invisible "creator".
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
We do need an honest debate about climate change, and both sides are far too eager to make us believe their agenda than to have us understand what is happening. And clearly something is happening.

And besides, public transport is actually a public good anyway - not that Irish Rail are convincing anybody....
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
News alert.

Popey on a ropey demands action on nasty CO2 emissions. Jumps on a plane to tell everyone about it:


 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
This news just in:


Popey wopey demands everyone stop their evil consumption and stop using energy.

After exhausting day saving the planet, he retires to his modest abode:

abc_papal_apartments_exterior_jef_ss_130314_ssh.jpg
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
This news just in:


Popey wopey demands everyone stop their evil consumption and stop using energy.

After exhausting day saving the planet, he retires to his modest abode:
What's with the trolling?
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
News flash:


God's megaphone demands "rich" west poor trillions into poorer countries to fund infrastructure that provides extremely expensive and unreliable electricity.


Moving along - Pope-a-Dope tells developing countries that if they use modern birth control they are going to HELL!
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,808
We do need an honest debate about climate change, and both sides are far too eager to make us believe their agenda than to have us understand what is happening. And clearly something is happening.

And besides, public transport is actually a public good anyway - not that Irish Rail are convincing anybody....
I have long since accepted that a "good faith" debate on climate change is just about not possible in nearly all circumstances.

Most on-line deniers I have on Ignore because of the way they just regurgitate long worn-out and debunked arguments ("pauses" in global warming, uncertainty, even the greenhouse effect that has been long established since the end of the 19th century). They are a waste of posting time.

Now a figure of wisdom and integrity charged a group of scientists to advise him, and he (the Pope, a smart individual with no prior agenda) accepts their evidence, and rejects the counter arguments. He even met a delegation from the right-wing fossil-fuel funded Heartland Institute, but did not accept their counter-presentation.

While he may not convince deep deniers, who are hopeless anyway, he will convince many waverers, if they honestly consider what he was to say.

Incidentally, I am curious myself about what the Pope has to say, and do not necessarily expect to agree with him in everything.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
I am not normally a fan of OwedToJoy. This is based on his blindspot relentless enthusiasm for political centralization, which are policies that end up benefitting the super-rich lobbyists that can then leverage against people to have policies that favour themselves.

But we do need an honest discussion about Climate Change, based on real data.

Trainwreck , similar comments were made about Al Gore's campaign on Global Warming, featuring Al going around in an SUV. And there is an issue with respect to birth control in societies where there is currently serious malnourishment and political corruption.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
The OP is a troll. To do anything else in reply is completely OT.


Face it - Pope is the "honest broker" which settles issues of science, economics and engineering? Don't even try.
The science? The scientists (majority not select few minority) clearly agree that climate science is real, emissions urgently need to be tackled and humans have caused global warming.

I have some religious friends, who don't believe the science, perhaps they'll revisit this, as their Pope is suggesting that climate change is happening and we are responsible, with a responsibility to the poorest of this World, who will suffer the most.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
The science? The scientists (majority not select few minority) clearly agree that climate science is real, emissions urgently need to be tackled and humans have caused global warming.

I have some religious friends, who don't believe the science, perhaps they'll revisit this, as their Pope is suggesting that climate change is happening and we are responsible, with a responsibility to the poorest of this World, who will suffer the most.

Those who formulate their views on issues of science and economics by what they are told by someone whose entire life is dedicated to the antithesis of science and economics need their heads examined.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,808
Last edited:
Last edited:
I am not normally a fan of OwedToJoy. This is based on his blindspot relentless enthusiasm for political centralization, which are policies that end up benefitting the super-rich lobbyists that can then leverage against people to have policies that favour themselves.

But we do need an honest discussion about Climate Change, based on real data.

Trainwreck , similar comments were made about Al Gore's campaign on Global Warming, featuring Al going around in an SUV. And there is an issue with respect to birth control in societies where there is currently serious malnourishment and political corruption.
There is plenty of real data, and the amount of agreement about it would probably surprise you.

A "leader" of denial Anthony Watts recently had a friendly beer with a climate activist Bill McKibben and they agreed:
  1. We both agreed that tackling real pollution issues was a good thing. When I say real pollution issues, I mean things like water pollution, air pollution, Ocean plastics pollution, and other real tangible and solvable problems.
  2. We both agreed that as technology advances, energy production is likely to become cleaner and more efficient.
  3. We both agreed that coal use especially in China and India where there are not significant environmental controls is creating harm for the environment and the people who live there.
  4. We both agreed that climate sensitivity, the response to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, hasn’t been nailed down yet. Bill thinks it’s on the high side while I think it’s on the low side…. [N]either of us thought the number had been correctly defined yet.
  5. We both talked about how nuclear power especially Thorium-based nuclear power could be a solution for future power needs that would provide a stable base electrical grid while at the same time having far fewer problems than the current fission products based on uranium and plutonium.
  6. We both agreed that the solar power systems we have put on our respective homes have been good things for each of us.
  7. We both agreed that there are “crazy people” on both sides of the debate and that each of us have suffered personally at the hands of some of the actions of these people (you know who you are). We both spoke of some of the hatred and threats that we have endured over the years, some of which required police intervention.
  8. We both agreed that if we could talk to our opponents more there would probably be less rhetoric, less noise, and less tribalism that fosters hatred of the opposing side.

McKibben later said he did not agree with No 5 about nuclear power, but he was fine with the rest.

The REAL issue is policy - if the world is warming dangerously, then (as with the Ozone Hole) international collective action and regulation is essential to counteract it. And it is that thought that terrifies ideological deniers, not to mention the massive corporations who make trillions on fossil fuel - they will have to accept that up to 80% of their assets will have to be left in the ground.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,808
The Pope's scientific advisers, known as the Pontifical Academy of Science:

... and a pretty eminent lot they are ... lots of Nobel Prizes, including the atmospheric chemists who characterised the Ozone Hole (Crutzen & Molina), plus Stephen Hawking & Ed Witten, two of the most distinguished physicists in the world. Climate science is also represented by V. Ramanathan.

Pontifical%2BAcademy%2B-%2Bcurrent.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences#Nobel_Prize-winning_members
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
14,592
Great to see these two great organised religions finally getting together.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
14,698
While on the one hand I agree with the OP, anybody that uses their power to persuade others to heed the global warming predictions is a good thing, and yet when you think of who he is, and what else he would have you believe you end up trying to make sense of nonsense.

I mean, if you are to believe what this man says then you have to believe that Global warming like all of mankind's attempts at self destruction are part of his bosses grand plan, and if he was serious and who he says he is then you would be expecting him to appeal to his all powerful boss and not the people who are simply hastening his return.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,808
The science? The scientists (majority not select few minority) clearly agree that climate science is real, emissions urgently need to be tackled and humans have caused global warming.

I have some religious friends, who don't believe the science, perhaps they'll revisit this, as their Pope is suggesting that climate change is happening and we are responsible, with a responsibility to the poorest of this World, who will suffer the most.
I guess among the Pope's messages will be one that everyone is responsible to consider the evidence in an even-handed way. In practice, we know that people tend to listen to voices they find congenial.

That is only half the story - the much harder question is: What to do next? What are the policy choices that will not seriously impact global quality of life, while assuring a stable climate (on which incidentally, that quality of life depends to a very large extent).

One thing is clear, despite what the deniers say, doing nothing is not an option.

burning-embers_550x502.jpg
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom