THE POPE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

I’ve got a couple of issues I’d like to discuss in this post.  On the TODAY Show this morning Harry Smith seemed quite approving of the fact that the Pope was now embracing the scientific consensus of global climate warming change.  He compared this with the Church’s punishment of Galileo in 1615 for the heresy of opposing the Church’s doctrine of the earth centered (geocentric) cosmological model.  Harry is laboring under a misunderstanding.  He thinks Galileo represented the scientific consensus.  I’ve got a news flash for Harry.  That geocentric model of the universe was THE scientific consensus and that’s the reason the Church had made it doctrine.  There was just one little problem.  The scientific consensus was wrong.  And Galileo?  Galileo was a “denier” in the same fashion of those who, today, question global climate warming change.  All of this is kind of humorous.  For years liberals have beaten the Catholic Church about the head and shoulders for its punishment of Galileo for opposing the scientific consensus.  Today liberals want to and are punishing “deniers” and are now cheering the Pope who excluded deniers from his climate meeting at the Vatican.  What a crazy, crazy world.

On the subject of the TODAY Show, this past week was very interesting.  The comments by the hosts of the show were almost nauseating.  The phrase sickeningly sweet comes to mind.  They fawned over their personal interactions with the Pope.  Their reverence for Francis enveloped them like a cloud.  I have to wonder if they would be so touched had they met the Apostle Peter himself.  Perhaps the real question to ask would be whether they would find Francis so wonderful had he emphasized opposition to abortion and not soft-peddled the Church’s stand against homosexuality and kept quiet about climate change?

OK, moving on, this past week there was a NOVA episode about the search for evidence that might shed new information about the failed expedition of Sir John Franklin to find the fabled Northwest Passage.  In an effort to find one of the expedition ships beneath the Arctic Sea, they used an underwater drone that looked much like a torpedo.  They were faced, however, with a problem of ice.  Chunks of ice floating in the sea represented a danger to the drone.  The sea was relatively clear of ice when they began, but soon clogged the search area.

Narrator –
“Global warming means the amount of summer sea ice in the arctic is in long term decline.  But from one year to the next the picture is far more complex.”

Scientist Stephanie Pfirman –
“Just because there is a warming trend due to global warming doesn’t mean that you won’t have variations…You can go from no ice one summer to completely land-locked ice where the ice goes from coast to coast in another summer.  It’s hard to predict [my emphasis].”

So it’s hard to predict from one summer to the next, but they feel confident predicting 20 or 50 or 100 years into the future.  Amazing!  There are other facts that I think are very telling.  Until 30 or 40 years ago scientists proposed theories related to the cycle of continuous climate change we refer to as the “Ice Ages.”  Those theories would be evaluated by other scientists and debated and re-considered.  Those theories dealt with factors like precession of the earth’s axis, flux of cosmic rays impacting the earth from both the sun and remote galactic sources, release of methane hydrates from the continental shelf, variation of the earth’s magnetic field and other lesser causes.  Here’s the thing – If we confiscated every penny of income from the top 20% of income earners and every penny of profit from every corporation and borrowed every dollar China has we couldn’t do anything to affect any of these factors.  However, we could cause all manner of harmful effects by spending large amounts of money on issues related to man made carbon dioxide.  So suddenly, 30 or 40 years ago the ONLY factor in climate change became CO2.  And CO2 was not even one of the theories considered as a cause of the Ice Ages, since in the historical record increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature and vice versa.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “THE POPE AND THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

  1. Sam, did you send this to your contact email list? If so, I did not get it. Please continue to send your blogs to me. God bless all your efforts to “get the WORD out!”

    Like

    • Thanks for the encouragement, Jack. I stopped sending my “commentaries/posts” to my email contact list when I started my Blog. I made an exception last week because I was concerned that the final blood moon of the tetrad might really be a harbinger of a catastrophic event and since so few people read my blog I wanted warn everybody I knew that they might not have another chance to turn back to God. I not only sent it to my regular contact list I sent it to almost everybody I ever had contact with. I got a lot of negative feedback and some folks asked to be removed from my contact list (which I did), but I thought it was important to get the word out. I’m glad that nothing happened – it will give people more time.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s