Hello, my name is Bob, and I’m a climate change denier

Hello, my name is Bob, and I’m a climate change denier.

Posted on Tuesday, September 12, AD 2017 by Bob Kurland, Ph.D.

Pope Francis, in an interview to the press (9/11/17) opined that “Humanity will ‘go down’ if it does not address climate change”. Now, despite the title of this post, I don’t deny that climate changes. It has changed and will change. There was the Medieval Warm Period, when the Viking colonized Greenland, and there have been glacial and inter-glacial changes. I will deny that man-made production of CO2 has much to do with such climate change, and I’ve justified that in a number of blog posts (see here, for example), as have other scientists.

What concerns me is that the Church, in the person of the Vicar of Christ, takes a position on unsettled science; and, despite some of Pope Francis’s statements–the verdict, in terms of model predictions being empirically justified, is not proven at all.

Let me go to a different case, where the science was more established. Abbe LeMaitre (and the Russian mathematician Friedmann) had shown that Einstein’s General Relativity Field equation yielded a time dependent solution with a singularity at the beginning of time, t=0, an expanding universe. And lo, and behold, the galactic red shift relations shown by Hubble were in accord with that expanding universe. And thus we knew about the “Big Bang”. Supposedly Pope Pius XII wanted to use this science as evidence for the doctrine, Creatio ex Nihilo, but was dissuaded from doing so by Abbe LeMaitre, who argued that science changes but faith does not. (The incident is discussed in much greater detail here.)

My point is that the Church is not competent to judge whether science is good or bad, and science can not say whether Doctrine or Dogma are true or false. The Church can certainly weigh in on the morality of applications of science–for example, Designer Babies, fetal cell research–but it can’t and shouldn’t make judgments on what science is true and what is not.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/09/12/hello-my-name-is-bob-and-im-a-climate-change-denier/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Hello, my name is Bob, and I’m a climate change denier

  1. The following verses from the Douay-Rheims seem to suggest that the earth is damaged, the physical earth, because of human influence. So much for the climate change naysayers.

    Isaiah 24: 4-6

    The earth mourned, and faded away, and is weakened: the world faded away, the height of the people of the earth is weakened. [5] And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant.

    [6] Therefore shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin: and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be left.

  2. The sea is come up over Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof. (Jeremiah 51:42)

  3. If the suggestion is that fornication, pagan idolatry, apostasy, and immorality, as in ancient Babylon during the era of Isaiah, are the cause of climate change and global warming that is going to cause quite a few problems for liberals and secular socialists.

  4. If the suggestion is that original sin, and man’s actual sins, put the balance of nature somewhat out of whack, I certainly buy it.
    in particular, as to anthropogenic global warming (caused specifically by mankind’s CO2 output) being real, that is the wildest superstition, and anyone who believes in that only gives evidence of the said original sin — which in this case shows up as a great deal of personal ignorance and/or gullibility.

    There are only two things you need to know in order to understand that AGW via CO2 is not happening.
    a) Total CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is around .04%. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere#Composition
    b) Man’s contribution to that is around 3.5% of the total — and that’s trusting the figures given by AGW alarmists, which are probably exaggerated.
    c) Therefore, total amount of man-caused atmospheric CO2 is .04 times .035, which is .0014 (.14%).
    To say another way then,
    Firstly:
    1) Man-caused atmospheric CO2 is .14% (that’s 14 hundredths of *one* percent) of the total atmosphere.
    Now secondly:
    2) CO2 is fertilizer for plants. The more there is in the atmosphere, the more they use, and the more they grow. The more they grow, the more they are able to use. Also, higher CO2 levels allow plants to do better in dry conditions. There have been hundreds of experiments done by the agriculture industry to verify this; experiments done with no agenda other than to increase production so as to make $. See www.co2science.org/. In short — although you NEVER hear this from the criminally ignorant AGW alarmists — plants constitute a major negative feedback loop that tends to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
    These facts require no computer “modeling” whatever. Their implications are obvious as they stand: it is utterly impossible that man-caused atmospheric CO2 is causing global warming, or anything else other than increased plant growth.

Leave a Reply