I have posted on this subject before, at least a few times, in “killing-children-to-save-the-planet” and in “the-anthropic-principle” and in “I-have-no-trunk” and even in “anthropogenic-global-warming” and “anthropogenic“.
Now it appears that the Pope is about to enter the fray with an “encyclical on the environment“. This is a much more definitive proclamation that “his extemporaneous remarks at the University of Molise“. David warren has hit it on the head here “On the “science” behind this — in fact, scientism — I have no reason to trust the advisers appointed, and many reasons to doubt them. They are for the most part not Christian themselves, let alone Catholic, and they represent very worldly vested interests. Huge amounts of money are at stake, in maintaining the “climate change” scare, and the ideological position behind them is unmistakable. These are men in pursuit of power, who wish to create vast new regulatory agencies to trump the existing worldly powers. They propose to compound large evils with an even greater evil. I only hope norms of Catholic teaching aren’t disturbed, while dancing with devils like these.
“Scientific consensus” is a bawd. There was a scientific consensus against Galileo Galilei — even greater across Protestant northern Europe than among his ex-friends in the University of Bologna. The Church is still paying today, for bowing to the scientific consensus of 1616. More broadly, the history of scientific consensus is more or less identical with the history of scientific error. Indeed, scientific truths are discerned, typically if not always, by one man outside the scientific consensus. (Sometimes they are two or three.) The dissenting voice is usually punished. … (more)
One would hope that perhaps the Catholic Church might just be able to square the circle without supplanting God for progressive fashion., but maybe not, and I have seen and heard crazier things in my short life.
My post on “epa-study-of-fracking-finds-no-widespread-systemic-pollution” is an illustration of the risks and problems with following a “consensus”, especially a consensus with such an “iffy” track record and literally trillions of dollars at stake.
I will wait to see the real thing. The many competing interests on both sides of this issue will be in a great rush to spin this product to suite their own slant and agenda. I have no doubt that few will actually read what it says and those who do will be drowned in a tsunami of dreck as the various parties scream for attention.
The little noticed fact that a veteran Vatican reporter with decades of experience has already lost his accreditation over this item speaks volumes towards indicating which camp the apparatchiks of the Vatican bureaucracy fall into with a large and sonorous plop. Salt and Light will no doubt be trumpeting their victory to the masses. It will probably get front page coverage for a couple of hours on “Being Liberal” before being upstaged by some Liberal celeb wanting to marry his sheep.
My bias is that I believe that yet again the Vatican is about to come down on the wrong side of history in another area of scientific controversy. I detect a distinct smell of sulfur in those cloistered halls these days. Chasing the twitter feed seldom has good results.
Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.