How certain are you?
In a CBS interview with Norah O’Donnell, a seated Pope Francis spoke with certainty about “the climate crisis,” but he was not “speaking from THE chair.” No, instead, the pontiff sat in an ordinary chair, much like the chairs you and I use when we discuss matters on which we often find ourselves fallible. “Speaking from THE chair,” or Ex Cathedra, also known as the Chair of St. Peter (Cathedra Petri), has a special meaning in the Church. In matters of faith and morality, the Church holds a pope’s words as infallible. Keep that in mind.
Popes have addressed topics outside the realm of faith and morality. They have even spoken about scientific matters, such as evolution. Pope Pius XII, for example, wrote in his Encyclical Humani Generis:
“It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation…
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God….” *
Yep, just a mere 91 years—fast on the ecclesial time scale— after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a pope recognized a science as complementing and not competing with Church doctrine. The days of Pope Urban VIII and il processo a Galileo Galilei before an Inquisition tribunal faded into the modern world of the twentieth century.
And the late and saintly, erudite polymath John Paul II followed Pius’ lead in a mid-nineties’ speech called “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” in which he said “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” **
But Now Francis
Does climate science fit into the same mold as evolution? Is it a science that in its current state can support predictions in the manner of physicists’ Standard Model? Or is it one that relies on paleontological stepping stones (fossils) to reveal a progression of changes leading to endgame species? Do past climates “evolve” into future climates?
Climate science, like evolution science can look with relative certainty on the past. There’s no doubt—but a few lingering details— about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Pleistocene glaciation, about the Younger Dryas, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. But biological evolution differs from climate change. Biological evolution makes no predictions because of its chaotic nature. I cannot predict with even a modicum of certainty a future species based on current variations, though I might note probable trends, such as “pygmyfying” of species in isolated places (pygmy hippo, elephant, Sumatran rhino, and other species). It could not have predicted the ramifications for life after a random bolide strike 65 million years ago, or after a disease or cosmic ray hitting a genome. It could not have predicted any consequences for new life-forms after any of the five mass extinctions, save that some trophic niches would be emptied, making way for new occupiers, such as , for example, the grass-eaters.
Infallibly predictive as Ex Cathedra speaking? I think not.
Past climate, definitely. Future climate? Not one scary prediction by the IPCC in 2000 has proven true with the obvious exception of an increase in anthropogenic emissions—but that isn’t “climate.” And as I noted recently, Earth has a number of climates from arid to humid and a number of climate controls from latitude to land-water distribution to semi-permanent highs and lows to elevation. The planet’s climates (30 according to the Köppen climate classification) have undergone changes because of precession, orbital change, massive volcanism, tectonics, orographic lifting, ocean currents, evolution of plants like grasses, and feedback loops of organics like methane: All working together or working separately either to enhance or cancel one another.
Complex, right?
Well, not so complex for the infallible pope. He believes “the science” and no doubt is further convinced by recent heat waves. What would his predecessors have said if an IPCC existed and was backed by a sycophantic press in their times? What did the tenth century’s 24 popes say at the onset of the Medieval Warm Period that began about 950? *** You think they proclaimed “The End”? Or did they say, “Give me a mild winter anytime.” Or what of the popes that reigned during the apex of the warming?
The Pope, however, now a spokesman for the IPCC, has labeled those seeking more scientific details on climate as “foolish.”
“There are people who are foolish, and foolish even if you show them research, they don’t believe it,” he said. “Why, because they don’t understand the situation, or because of their interest, but climate change exists.” ****
And since he believes climate change is a moral matter, he speaks with the same certainty as he would in speaking ex cathedra.
Earth Sciences
I have long argued for certain topics in school curricula: Economics and finances; Speaking and writing; History devoid of agenda-driven re-writes; Energy; Mathematics; Biology; and Earth sciences (geology meteorology, climatology, resources, oceanography). Had Francis taken a course in climate science, he might understand the reasons behind some climate change skepticism: 30 climate categories, for example, historical data on actual climate changes, the weight of individual controls that act in unison, in cancelling, or in sequence to exacerbate change or regulate stability, and the ineffectiveness of human influences that occur in economic competition—Chinese, American, and Indian emissions.
But, Oh! How Far Have We Come? The Irony
During the days of Inquisitions, the Church was an enemy of science, thus the trials of Galileo over the heliocentric Solar System and Giordano Bruno over extra-solar planets and an eccentric and physically unbounded universe. With Francis the Church has not only become a defender of science but also a disciple. Are we now to accept the words of climate change scientists as infallible? Is the Chair of Infallibility located not in the Vatican, but rather in Geneva?
Clearing House
Does the pope get junk mail from Publishers’ Clearing House? You know, I assume, that that is what the IPCC is, a clearing house for reports deemed relevant to climate change. The IPCC doesn’t do research; it collates and reports on research. So, numerous “scientists” eager to rake in what now seems to be unlimited funding are pursuing topics they can tie to climate, including migration, recent trends in sea temps, and spreading tropical diseases. In short, everything that can be inferred as a climate effect is fair game, and fudged data are manipulated and skewed toward only one side. Thus, everyone has heard of dying coral reefs, but few have hear of thriving reefs—such reports are quashed and their researchers mocked or even, as in the case of dismissed Australian scientist Dr. Peter Ridd, subject to censure.
Your Horoscope, an Analog
Ever read your horoscope? Here’s mine for yesterday, May 4, 2024:
The Pisces moon makes a series of dreamy aspects with Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune throughout the first half of the day, sweeping you away into a world of softness and fantasy. Lean into these vibes by going within, exploring your creative mind and deep subconscious. Your popularity increases mid-afternoon when Luna enters your sign, snapping you back into the present. Use this energy to consider how the goals you dream about can become a reality. Instant bonds could form when you explore your community this evening when Pluto stirs. A bust of motivation finds you tonight when the moon and Mars unite to stir passions.
Lots of specificity, right? Not! No one could sue an astrologer if such a prediction failed to materialize. “Your Honor, he must not have ‘leaned into the vibes.’”
Here’s Everyone’s summer weather horoscope from researchers at one of the Max Planck institutes: Expect a hot summer though it might be more an effect of an El Niño than of carbon. Like my personal horoscope, Everyone’s summer prediction contains a caveat.
Consider this from Max Planck Gesellschaft: “But even the physical formulae used by climate researchers to calculate their forecasts still contain uncertainties. For example, IPCC predictions for global warming indicate a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of the CO2 content compared with the pre-industrial age, when the atmosphere contained 285 parts per million of CO2. The relatively large interval results from numerous imponderables in the climate system. This is because global warming can result in a feedback effect, which can either further aggravate climate change or mitigate it.” ******
Imponderables! But not for Pope Francis!
*Online at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
**Online at https://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
***Pope Agapetus II
Pope Anastasius III
Pope Benedict IV
Pope Benedict V
Pope Benedict VI
Pope Benedict VII
Pope Gregory V
Pope John IX
Pope John X
Pope John XI
Pope John XII
Pope John XIII
Pope John XIV
Pope John XV
Pope Lando
Pope Leo V
Pope Leo VI
Pope Leo VII
Pope Leo VIII
Pope Marinus II
Pope Sergius III
Pope Stephen VII
Pope Stephen VIII
Pope Sylvester II
****https://angelusnews.com/voices/pope-cbs-interview-america/
*****https://www.mpg.de/11863295/climate-and-transformation
*****https://www.mpg.de/en
In a CBS interview with Norah O’Donnell, a seated Pope Francis spoke with certainty about “the climate crisis,” but he was not “speaking from THE chair.” No, instead, the pontiff sat in an ordinary chair, much like the chairs you and I use when we discuss matters on which we often find ourselves fallible. “Speaking from THE chair,” or Ex Cathedra, also known as the Chair of St. Peter (Cathedra Petri), has a special meaning in the Church. In matters of faith and morality, the Church holds a pope’s words as infallible. Keep that in mind.
Popes have addressed topics outside the realm of faith and morality. They have even spoken about scientific matters, such as evolution. Pope Pius XII, for example, wrote in his Encyclical Humani Generis:
“It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation…
“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God….” *
Yep, just a mere 91 years—fast on the ecclesial time scale— after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a pope recognized a science as complementing and not competing with Church doctrine. The days of Pope Urban VIII and il processo a Galileo Galilei before an Inquisition tribunal faded into the modern world of the twentieth century.
And the late and saintly, erudite polymath John Paul II followed Pius’ lead in a mid-nineties’ speech called “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” in which he said “new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” **
But Now Francis
Does climate science fit into the same mold as evolution? Is it a science that in its current state can support predictions in the manner of physicists’ Standard Model? Or is it one that relies on paleontological stepping stones (fossils) to reveal a progression of changes leading to endgame species? Do past climates “evolve” into future climates?
Climate science, like evolution science can look with relative certainty on the past. There’s no doubt—but a few lingering details— about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Pleistocene glaciation, about the Younger Dryas, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. But biological evolution differs from climate change. Biological evolution makes no predictions because of its chaotic nature. I cannot predict with even a modicum of certainty a future species based on current variations, though I might note probable trends, such as “pygmyfying” of species in isolated places (pygmy hippo, elephant, Sumatran rhino, and other species). It could not have predicted the ramifications for life after a random bolide strike 65 million years ago, or after a disease or cosmic ray hitting a genome. It could not have predicted any consequences for new life-forms after any of the five mass extinctions, save that some trophic niches would be emptied, making way for new occupiers, such as , for example, the grass-eaters.
Infallibly predictive as Ex Cathedra speaking? I think not.
Past climate, definitely. Future climate? Not one scary prediction by the IPCC in 2000 has proven true with the obvious exception of an increase in anthropogenic emissions—but that isn’t “climate.” And as I noted recently, Earth has a number of climates from arid to humid and a number of climate controls from latitude to land-water distribution to semi-permanent highs and lows to elevation. The planet’s climates (30 according to the Köppen climate classification) have undergone changes because of precession, orbital change, massive volcanism, tectonics, orographic lifting, ocean currents, evolution of plants like grasses, and feedback loops of organics like methane: All working together or working separately either to enhance or cancel one another.
Complex, right?
Well, not so complex for the infallible pope. He believes “the science” and no doubt is further convinced by recent heat waves. What would his predecessors have said if an IPCC existed and was backed by a sycophantic press in their times? What did the tenth century’s 24 popes say at the onset of the Medieval Warm Period that began about 950? *** You think they proclaimed “The End”? Or did they say, “Give me a mild winter anytime.” Or what of the popes that reigned during the apex of the warming?
The Pope, however, now a spokesman for the IPCC, has labeled those seeking more scientific details on climate as “foolish.”
“There are people who are foolish, and foolish even if you show them research, they don’t believe it,” he said. “Why, because they don’t understand the situation, or because of their interest, but climate change exists.” ****
And since he believes climate change is a moral matter, he speaks with the same certainty as he would in speaking ex cathedra.
Earth Sciences
I have long argued for certain topics in school curricula: Economics and finances; Speaking and writing; History devoid of agenda-driven re-writes; Energy; Mathematics; Biology; and Earth sciences (geology meteorology, climatology, resources, oceanography). Had Francis taken a course in climate science, he might understand the reasons behind some climate change skepticism: 30 climate categories, for example, historical data on actual climate changes, the weight of individual controls that act in unison, in cancelling, or in sequence to exacerbate change or regulate stability, and the ineffectiveness of human influences that occur in economic competition—Chinese, American, and Indian emissions.
But, Oh! How Far Have We Come? The Irony
During the days of Inquisitions, the Church was an enemy of science, thus the trials of Galileo over the heliocentric Solar System and Giordano Bruno over extra-solar planets and an eccentric and physically unbounded universe. With Francis the Church has not only become a defender of science but also a disciple. Are we now to accept the words of climate change scientists as infallible? Is the Chair of Infallibility located not in the Vatican, but rather in Geneva?
Clearing House
Does the pope get junk mail from Publishers’ Clearing House? You know, I assume, that that is what the IPCC is, a clearing house for reports deemed relevant to climate change. The IPCC doesn’t do research; it collates and reports on research. So, numerous “scientists” eager to rake in what now seems to be unlimited funding are pursuing topics they can tie to climate, including migration, recent trends in sea temps, and spreading tropical diseases. In short, everything that can be inferred as a climate effect is fair game, and fudged data are manipulated and skewed toward only one side. Thus, everyone has heard of dying coral reefs, but few have hear of thriving reefs—such reports are quashed and their researchers mocked or even, as in the case of dismissed Australian scientist Dr. Peter Ridd, subject to censure.
Your Horoscope, an Analog
Ever read your horoscope? Here’s mine for yesterday, May 4, 2024:
The Pisces moon makes a series of dreamy aspects with Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune throughout the first half of the day, sweeping you away into a world of softness and fantasy. Lean into these vibes by going within, exploring your creative mind and deep subconscious. Your popularity increases mid-afternoon when Luna enters your sign, snapping you back into the present. Use this energy to consider how the goals you dream about can become a reality. Instant bonds could form when you explore your community this evening when Pluto stirs. A bust of motivation finds you tonight when the moon and Mars unite to stir passions.
Lots of specificity, right? Not! No one could sue an astrologer if such a prediction failed to materialize. “Your Honor, he must not have ‘leaned into the vibes.’”
Here’s Everyone’s summer weather horoscope from researchers at one of the Max Planck institutes: Expect a hot summer though it might be more an effect of an El Niño than of carbon. Like my personal horoscope, Everyone’s summer prediction contains a caveat.
Consider this from Max Planck Gesellschaft: “But even the physical formulae used by climate researchers to calculate their forecasts still contain uncertainties. For example, IPCC predictions for global warming indicate a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of the CO2 content compared with the pre-industrial age, when the atmosphere contained 285 parts per million of CO2. The relatively large interval results from numerous imponderables in the climate system. This is because global warming can result in a feedback effect, which can either further aggravate climate change or mitigate it.” ******
Imponderables! But not for Pope Francis!
*Online at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
**Online at https://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
***Pope Agapetus II
Pope Anastasius III
Pope Benedict IV
Pope Benedict V
Pope Benedict VI
Pope Benedict VII
Pope Gregory V
Pope John IX
Pope John X
Pope John XI
Pope John XII
Pope John XIII
Pope John XIV
Pope John XV
Pope Lando
Pope Leo V
Pope Leo VI
Pope Leo VII
Pope Leo VIII
Pope Marinus II
Pope Sergius III
Pope Stephen VII
Pope Stephen VIII
Pope Sylvester II
****https://angelusnews.com/voices/pope-cbs-interview-america/
*****https://www.mpg.de/11863295/climate-and-transformation
*****https://www.mpg.de/en
RSS Feed