Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
Posted on 16 November 2011 by John Cook
Recently, Cardinal George Pell delivered a speech at Westminster's Cathedral Hall which was reproduced in full by ABC Religion. I've just published a response to Cardinal Pell's speech on the ABC Religion website: Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change. A short excerpt:
In a much publicised recent speech, Cardinal George Pell strongly endorsed the importance of evidence in public debate. He argues that "the debates about anthropogenic global warming can only be conducted by the accurate recognition and interpretation of scientific evidence."
It would be hard to find anyone who would disagree with his sentiment - a proper understanding of climate must be built on a foundation of empirical observations. There's just one problem: Cardinal Pell fails to practise what he preaches.
In order accurately to recognize and interpret scientific evidence, one must consider the full body of evidence. Pell's arguments make it painfully clear that he is unaware of the many lines of evidence that form our understanding of human-caused global warming.
Decades of scientific research have examined global warming from the front, back, sideways and every other conceivable angle. The same climate myths we hear echoing in the blogosphere, Australian parliament and even in Westminster's Cathedral Hall - thanks to Cardinal Pell - were scrutinized and discounted by climate scientists years ago, and, in some cases, decades ago.
By ignoring the long history of scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature, climate skeptics are doomed to repeat the errors of the past.
Arguments































The baby in the bathtub (lets call him Enso) analogy from you rebuttal was brilliant.
I am astounded that Pell an expert in things theological should have fallen for the false prophets of Monkton et al.
Maybe he should read his bible:
"2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
Indeed they are.
Cardinal Pell is living in his anthropocentric paradise
I cannot agree more. Christianity have been developed on top of the dogma that: "God created the world for man to have domination over". Irrational and transcendental denialism in a form of "God is almighty so he cannot let the destruction of the world he created" is the typical stance of conservative clergy. Pell, by repeating the long rebutted Monckton-like trivialisms such as "I have discovered that very few people know how small the percentage of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere..." confirms that his conservatism prevents him from learning the true nature of AGW.
IMO, the religions, especially christianity need some change and it's important because they influence lots of poeple. Will see what Vatican would say about AGW, if anytime soon. Hopefully something better than what we've heart from Pell. We don't need to look far for good examples: the geo-centric model of James Lovelock's Gaia is enough, I would gladly see it adopted by this or next generation of theologians.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences released a paper in May this year by one of its commissioned working groups.
Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
"Declaration by the Working Group
We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.
We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish."
Pretty strong stuff and a long way from Pell's "articles of faith" it seems.
I cannot access http://www.vatican.va at the moment but will check with interest. Thaks for that news, it's very encouraging! And, apparently it puts Cardinal Pell on lost position unless he starts learning the facts and "removes log from his eye".
The debate about the science should be over...too much energy is being spent on myth busting. The debate should now be about what we value....is it how much a carbon tax will impact on my household budget in Marrickville Sydney or is it about something much, much more important?
Pell's diatribe is bereft of an ethical position. This is some ironic given his position and his moral and ordained responsibilities as a leader of his flock.
I know many Christians who take this as meaning that God would not permit the planet to warm so that it would harm humanity. It would seem to me that such faithful folk entirely miss the point - in the story, God promised not to wipe out humans again, but He said nothing about permitting humans to do so themselves.
Also, the Revelation myth tells of the End Time, and there is nothing inconsistent with human-wrought climatological/ecological destruction heralding humanity's end-time.
Christians who think that God won't permit climatological harm to come to them seem to be missing the enormous holes in their arguments, provided not by science but by their own mythology.
Perhaps this explains why so many sceptics insist that warming is natural; and so keen to deny the possibility of an anthropogenic cause.
On the main thrust of the article: I don't see how Cardinal Pell is able to get away with this, when his colleagues -- including the Pope -- are so clearly in disagreement with him.
I entirely agree. Cardinal Pell has acknowledged that his climate scepticism is a personal view and not official Catholic Church teaching. If he was a business executive, lawyer or even a parish priest, would anyone listen to, or care about, these "personal views"? It is only as a leader of the Catholic Church that he gets an audience. I therefore put this question to both his Church and the wider community to consider:
Is it appropriate for him to use the media profile and sphere of influence he has as a cardinal to speak out on issues such as as climate change on which he is so obviously not an expert?
As an atheist, I do not think global warming will bring on the Christian apocalypse. There is no hope for us that if we go that course there will be a last minute divine intervention.
However, as a former candidate for ministry I can say that continuing with BAU does violate the Christian duty of stewardship of the Earth, and of concern for the poor. And that nothing in God's purported promise to Noah prevents a forthcoming apocaplypse.
The title and opening remarks in Cardinal Pell’s speech encapsulate all that is deficient in his worldview. His reference to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel indicates that, to him, the idea that mankind can change the climate of the Earth is as prideful and far-fetched as the tower builder’s belief they could reach heaven.
This idea is profoundly wrong both in terms of the science and theology. As to the science, John has answered that well. As to the theology, Genesis chapter 1 states that man was made "in the image of God", and was given authority to rule (responsibly) over the Earth. This means that man, like God, has the power to create and destroy. Should Cardinal Pell doubt our ability to wreck the environment, we need to look no further than our power to split the atom in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We came perilously close to nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis of 1963. I believe by the grace of God, we were saved at that time by President Kennedy, who unlike Cardinal Pell, understood the destructive potential of mankind’s follies.
If he is going to practice what he preaches, surely he should advocate the same principles being applied to the religious beliefs he espouses? Martin Luther did!
Forget about the Science when it comes to Cardinal Pell, it's all about Australian Federal Politics.
Cardinal Pell is closely linked to the Leader of the Federal Opposition Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, a former seminarian, (and nothing wrong with that).
Tony Abbott, somewhat devoid on the policy front, has adopted a position of NO to all Labour Government intitiatives, including a Price on Carbon.
He also has strong links to big business, mining companies, etc. (you get the drift).
Other Opposition Members, such as former leader Malcolm Turnbull, were in favour of a Price on Carbon.
Tony Abbott vacillates on AGW, depending on who his audience is at a particular time & place.
All about Politics, alas, and nothing about the Science.