Apparently, a copy of Pope Francis' upcoming encyclical (a letter to all bishops) on climate change has been leaked to the press. In it, he condemns mankind for not being good stewards of the God-given earth. He also blames the rich and rich countries for much of the destruction due to global warming. For that reason, the rich countries should compensate the poorer countries for any injuries they have or will have as a result of global warming and climate change.
Of course, the political left -- a group that is normally at odds with the Catholic Church because of its stand on gays and lesbians, birth control, and abortion -- is going to politically use this to push their climate change agenda.
But, we shouldn't necessarily believe the Pope on climate change.
There have been many noted scientists whose published works were placed on the Church's list of prohibited books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) as being heresy. That is, until, as much as century has passed in proving those works to be valid. For example, the works of a Franciscan Friar, Giordano Bruno, were on that list and he was tried by the Church for heresy and burned at the stake. This was truly a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. While his execution was as a result of his theological teachings, the Church also banned his scientific preachings. Preachings such as the stars are actual suns with planets revolving around them; just as is the case with our own solar system.
However, the biggest miss in scientific terms, was that of heliocentrism. The Church found that believing that that the earth rotated around the sun was also heresy. For that reason, Galileo was found guilty of heresy in 1633 for promoting such an idea. This "crime" resulted in his house arrest of 9 years until his death 1642. It wasn't until 1758 that the Church reversed its position on the earth being at the center of all our planets and the sun, and took Galileo's book off the prohibited list. Today, we celebrate Galileo as one of the world's greatest astronomers.
Personally, I don't believe the Pope should get involved with anything associated with climate change. His support of it sounds more like a socialist condemning capitalism and wealth rather than a true supporter of a scientific issue. Like Darwin's 'Origin of Species', which was never formally condemned by the Church or placed on its prohibited list, silence on climate change would have been the better position of the Church and this Pope. Let's not repeat the problematic support of false science that has plagued the Catholic Church in the past.
One last thing. If the world does buy into global warming, then the cost of energy to light and heat homes will only rise. This will impact the poor and poorer countries more than anyone else. As a man who did so much good for the poor of Argentina, doesn't he now have his priorities all wrong?
References:
Pope urges changes to avoid 'unprecedented damage' from climate change in leaked encyclical document: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-warns-of-unprecedented-damage-from-climate-change-in-leaked-encyclical-document-10322156.html
Galileo affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Catholic Church and evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
Index Librorum Prohibitorum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
Giordano Bruno: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Friday, January 8, 2010
How Real Science Is Supposed To Work
This morning, a research group released data that may actually show that EMF radiation from cellphones could possibly impede and reverse the development of Alzheimers disease (Click to See Full Story: "Cell Phone Radiation Cuts Alzheimer's... in Mice).
Aside from the amazing conclusions of this research, there is a more important lesson to be learned here.
The group doing the research initially set out to prove that Alzheimers patients would suffer additional deteriorating effects if they were exposed to cellphone radiation. But, the results showing an improvement in those patients was a complete surprise. They now have pressed forward in seeing if there is actually a cure that could come out of their research.
This is so contrary to the research being done by the AGW Climate Change scientific community. In the case of global warming research, if the data contradicted the results they were looking for, they changed the data and not their opinions. As the President always likes to say, the Alzheimer scientists have truly provided a "teaching moment". Of course, the Global Warming scientists and Obama probably aren't listening.
Aside from the amazing conclusions of this research, there is a more important lesson to be learned here.
The group doing the research initially set out to prove that Alzheimers patients would suffer additional deteriorating effects if they were exposed to cellphone radiation. But, the results showing an improvement in those patients was a complete surprise. They now have pressed forward in seeing if there is actually a cure that could come out of their research.
This is so contrary to the research being done by the AGW Climate Change scientific community. In the case of global warming research, if the data contradicted the results they were looking for, they changed the data and not their opinions. As the President always likes to say, the Alzheimer scientists have truly provided a "teaching moment". Of course, the Global Warming scientists and Obama probably aren't listening.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Murphy's Law and Global Warming
There are several Murphy's Laws besides the famous "If anything can go wrong, it will." One such law is Murphy's "Law of Research" which states: "Enough research will tend to support whatever theory."
I have always felt that Murphy's "Law of Research" has been "at play" in support of "Global Warming". Where Murphy gets it right is that, all too often, parts of the scientific community will establish a thesis and, in doing so, focus all their work in proving it; to the exclusion of any contradictory data. That's why, sometimes, you get numerous opposing results. Often, this is because a broad spectrum of data is being excluded or ignored so that the desired (or preferred) conclusion is reached. A typical example has to do with the research on coffee. How many times have you heard that coffee is bad for you? How often have you heard that coffee isn't harmful or that it might actually have benefits? Many times you have to look at who's doing the study and, more importantly, who's paying them to do it!
I have worked with many scientists in my business career. I worked for a major, Fortune 100, health care company. Often, scientists are highly idealistic and very impractical. (And, I could go on!) That's why it sometime takes the non-scientist to oversee their work and to make sure that they stay on track.
In this blog, I have often been highly critical of the hysteria over Global Warming; at least when it come to being man made. In a March 2008 entry to this blog, "The Cooling Realities of Global Warming" (click to link to it), I listed a number of recent studies which have contradicted the core belief that humans are causing global warming.
Well, the data to support my belief just keeps rolling in. The latest is the fact that the ice sheets in Greenland: (1) may not be melting as fast as once thought and/or (2) might actually have stopped or reversed in its melting (See Full Story).
The above story didn't even make the headlines. That's because the "liberal press" won't hear of it. The media has bought into the liberal-line that mankind is destroying everything on earth. In the 1960's and 70's, the culprit in the destruction of this world was sulfur dioxide, lead, PCB's, and all the other toxins that industry was spewing into the atmosphere and dumping into our waterways. Once industry was able to substantially overcome and suppress those contaminants, the "greens" of the world decided to focus on one of the most common of elements in our atmosphere, CO2 (carbon dioxide) as something we should worry about. Forget about the fact that every time we take a breath, oxygen is taken in and CO2 is expelled. Also, forget about the fact that plants on this earth will survive (better) in a CO2-rich environment because carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis which, in turn, returns oxygen to the earth so that we can survive. And, for this reason, I firmly believe that the "Gaia Hypothesis" (See Full Story) may be at play in our environment. The earth "might" actually be healing itself by offsetting the increased CO2 levels with a more robust plant environment. The result could be a natural reduction in CO2 and the increased production of oxygen in our atmosphere.
Idealism plays a big part in the scientific community's work on Global Warming. To say that most scientists are liberals and environmentalist would be an understatement. For this reason, finding conclusions against the use of "fossil fuels" can be quite the incentive; often, to the exclusion of less supportive or contradictory data. And, don't get me wrong. I don't think it is intentionally done. I just think that, like being in love, the scientific community "can be" blind to all the facts.
Lastly, my guess is that almost all of the scientists in the world are "not" independently wealthy. (Just a guess!) I suspect that almost all of them are able to do their work based on grants and salaries received from some (liberal?) university or some other organization like a government or an organization like the United Nations. I also know, having worked with them, that "their" actual research is focused in a single direction and that direction is often based on the constraints placed on them by those who have funded their work. To some extent, this taints their results because, in order to continue their studies (and their pay), they almost always "have to" provide study results that are "favorable" in the minds of their benefactors. That's why Al Gore's claim that scientists who "don't" believe in Global Warming do so because of their are being paid by polluting companies is just another liberal red herring. All scientists, for and against Global Warming, are, in some degree, beholding to someone; both idealistically and financially. That's why, I think, Murphy's "Law of Research" aptly applies to Global Warming; both pro and con.
As usual.. This is just my opinion.. Just my thoughts!
As an aside... There over 1,000 wildfires burning in California. How much CO2 do you think is being pumped into our atmosphere as a result? I don't actually know, but my guess is that it will take a substantial reduction in "automobile exhaust" to offset the "smoke" that is so widespread that it can be easily seen from satellite images. Images that show that smoke blanketing several States in the Western United States. Some of those fires could have been minimized or even avoided if the environmentalists hadn't blocked clear cutting, removal of old and undergrowth, and allowed permanent firebreaks to be set in fire prone areas. Somebody ought to tell the environmentalists that dead "trees" and plants are God's original fossil fuel!
I have always felt that Murphy's "Law of Research" has been "at play" in support of "Global Warming". Where Murphy gets it right is that, all too often, parts of the scientific community will establish a thesis and, in doing so, focus all their work in proving it; to the exclusion of any contradictory data. That's why, sometimes, you get numerous opposing results. Often, this is because a broad spectrum of data is being excluded or ignored so that the desired (or preferred) conclusion is reached. A typical example has to do with the research on coffee. How many times have you heard that coffee is bad for you? How often have you heard that coffee isn't harmful or that it might actually have benefits? Many times you have to look at who's doing the study and, more importantly, who's paying them to do it!
I have worked with many scientists in my business career. I worked for a major, Fortune 100, health care company. Often, scientists are highly idealistic and very impractical. (And, I could go on!) That's why it sometime takes the non-scientist to oversee their work and to make sure that they stay on track.
In this blog, I have often been highly critical of the hysteria over Global Warming; at least when it come to being man made. In a March 2008 entry to this blog, "The Cooling Realities of Global Warming" (click to link to it), I listed a number of recent studies which have contradicted the core belief that humans are causing global warming.
Well, the data to support my belief just keeps rolling in. The latest is the fact that the ice sheets in Greenland: (1) may not be melting as fast as once thought and/or (2) might actually have stopped or reversed in its melting (See Full Story).
The above story didn't even make the headlines. That's because the "liberal press" won't hear of it. The media has bought into the liberal-line that mankind is destroying everything on earth. In the 1960's and 70's, the culprit in the destruction of this world was sulfur dioxide, lead, PCB's, and all the other toxins that industry was spewing into the atmosphere and dumping into our waterways. Once industry was able to substantially overcome and suppress those contaminants, the "greens" of the world decided to focus on one of the most common of elements in our atmosphere, CO2 (carbon dioxide) as something we should worry about. Forget about the fact that every time we take a breath, oxygen is taken in and CO2 is expelled. Also, forget about the fact that plants on this earth will survive (better) in a CO2-rich environment because carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis which, in turn, returns oxygen to the earth so that we can survive. And, for this reason, I firmly believe that the "Gaia Hypothesis" (See Full Story) may be at play in our environment. The earth "might" actually be healing itself by offsetting the increased CO2 levels with a more robust plant environment. The result could be a natural reduction in CO2 and the increased production of oxygen in our atmosphere.
Idealism plays a big part in the scientific community's work on Global Warming. To say that most scientists are liberals and environmentalist would be an understatement. For this reason, finding conclusions against the use of "fossil fuels" can be quite the incentive; often, to the exclusion of less supportive or contradictory data. And, don't get me wrong. I don't think it is intentionally done. I just think that, like being in love, the scientific community "can be" blind to all the facts.
Lastly, my guess is that almost all of the scientists in the world are "not" independently wealthy. (Just a guess!) I suspect that almost all of them are able to do their work based on grants and salaries received from some (liberal?) university or some other organization like a government or an organization like the United Nations. I also know, having worked with them, that "their" actual research is focused in a single direction and that direction is often based on the constraints placed on them by those who have funded their work. To some extent, this taints their results because, in order to continue their studies (and their pay), they almost always "have to" provide study results that are "favorable" in the minds of their benefactors. That's why Al Gore's claim that scientists who "don't" believe in Global Warming do so because of their are being paid by polluting companies is just another liberal red herring. All scientists, for and against Global Warming, are, in some degree, beholding to someone; both idealistically and financially. That's why, I think, Murphy's "Law of Research" aptly applies to Global Warming; both pro and con.
As usual.. This is just my opinion.. Just my thoughts!
As an aside... There over 1,000 wildfires burning in California. How much CO2 do you think is being pumped into our atmosphere as a result? I don't actually know, but my guess is that it will take a substantial reduction in "automobile exhaust" to offset the "smoke" that is so widespread that it can be easily seen from satellite images. Images that show that smoke blanketing several States in the Western United States. Some of those fires could have been minimized or even avoided if the environmentalists hadn't blocked clear cutting, removal of old and undergrowth, and allowed permanent firebreaks to be set in fire prone areas. Somebody ought to tell the environmentalists that dead "trees" and plants are God's original fossil fuel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
