12 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."
Al Gore will probably be going to Hell for his part in perpetuating the hoax of global warming, says Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811
The dialogue with experts is the important bit there, Al Gore, not being an expert should be taken with a grain of salt, which is what I've seen everyone on this forum suggest. What differs is when the experts on the issue, climate scientists, are not listened to, and dogmatic "Don't you dare tax me" attitudes result in the same extreme, and unhelpful, positions.
The experts, on balance, all point to the same story, not as extreme as Gore suggests, but that something needs to be done to counteract our effects. The pope has said nothing to counter that. Though I'm not going to start taking advice from an 80 year old homophobe who thinks condoms are evil and out of wedlock sex immoral.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIs it really a suprise to hear the vatican questioning science again?
Al Gore will probably be going to Hell for his part in perpetuating the hoax of global warming, says Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811
I seem to remember a certain scientist being raked over the coals for the blasphemous supposition that the Sun was at the centre of our solar system and not the Earth.
Come on DSR, you've hit a new low.
12 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by agrysonYour post is very balanced and to the point ..... until you start throwing around Ad Hominems and Red Herrings.
"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."
from an 80 year old homophobe who thinks condoms are evil and out of wedlock sex immoral.
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessThat's not what Benedict XVI is doing here. On the contrary ...... he is advocating a balanced rational scientific debate about these matters which are so important for the future of the planet and indeed for mankind.
Is it really a suprise to hear the vatican questioning science again?
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe government of the US should take good notice of the following quotes:
Al Gore will probably be going to Hell for his part in perpetuating the hoax of global warming, says Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811
"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.
"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."
... so please, dó make a distinction between what the Pope writes about the subject and the Daily Mail's "interpretation".
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances."
Al Gore will probably be going to Hell for his part in perpetuating the hoax of global warming, says Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811
All sides should take good notice of the black highlighted part.
Reading this thread and other sources one cannot overlook the assessment that it can't hurt to "depoliticise" the ecological problems as much as possible.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeUh, the debate is over. There's nothing left to discuss. Societal impacts have been determined. Solutions have been put forward.
That's not what Benedict XVI is doing here. On the contrary ...... he is advocating a balanced rational scientific debate about these matters which are so important for the future of the planet and indeed for mankind.
More talk won't change the nature of the solutions, just delay them.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI actually added the last bit to be more balanced. I was pointing out that the pope did not disagree with me or my viewpoint and that his argument held water. That was the argument part.
Your post is very balanced and to the point ..... until you start throwing around Ad Hominems and Red Herrings.
What you call an Ad Hominem was not to undermine or support the speech in question, it was more to provide my own opinion of the man, which given that he believes (openly) that condoms are a grave sin and homosexuality sends you to hell, I think they were fair comments. The reason I said it was not to provide a red herring either, but to demonstrate that the reason I agree with him is not because of who he is (which I would wager is a rare thing amongst those who agree with him) but because of what he is saying at this moment in time. The very opposite of ad hominem.
I apologise for the confusion.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe black highlighted part, incidentally...
"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, [b]uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balanc ...[text shortened]... ssessment that it can't hurt to "depoliticise" the ecological problems as much as possible.[/b]
The leader of a large religious group (his only authority on the subject) giving his opinion on global warming (just a week after his most recent encyclical bashing sciences place in society) counts as something other than idealogical pressure?
I think the bigger question here is not global warming... there are PLENTY of threads here for that, but moreso, what place does the pope, a religious leader have in trying to affect or influence the interpretation of science and the process of politics, particularly the latter. I know very well that he can. I also know very well (within my own moral framework) that he should not. And that's from someone who technically is a roman catholic.
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessMaybe a little fact checking......
Is it really a suprise to hear the vatican questioning science again?
I seem to remember a certain scientist being raked over the coals for the blasphemous supposition that the Sun was at the centre of our solar system and not the Earth.
Come on DSR, you've hit a new low.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth
The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
There's more interesting bits to the article if any one is interested.