Global Warming Debate Still Cooling

 

In any any area of study within the natural sciences, there are usually data which may be contradictory and many times opinions regarding the meaning of data even when studies yield consistent data.  So why do we not hear about conflicting data and opinions regarding the issue of global warming?  Why has the information been so one sided?  Are there not data and voices which do not support the concept of global warming?  Why have we not heard the other side?  I’ve posted before about this here and here and have recently come across some interesting information from the Cato Institute.  Read the entire report.  I’ve posted the Executive Summary here.

In the last two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published concerning global warming, largely concentrating on melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions. The sheer volume of these stories appears to be moving the American political process toward some type of policy restricting emissions of carbon dioxide. It is highly improbable, in a statistical sense, that new information added to any existing forecast is almost always “bad” or “good”; rather, each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science. This paper examines in detail both recent scientific reports on climate change and the communication of those reports.

Needless to say, the unreported information is usually counter to the bad news. Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate. Similar stories concerning Antarctica neglect the fact that the net temperature trend in recent decades is negative, or that warming the surrounding ocean can serve only to enhance snowfall, resulting in a gain in ice. Global warming affects hurricanes in both positive and negative fashions, and there is no relationship between the severity of storms and ocean-surface temperature, once a commonly exceeded threshold temperature is reached. Reports of massive species extinction also turn out to be impressively flawed.

This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports.

For goodness sake, I’m a bit disturbed that an issue as important to our economy has received so little honest debate.  It seems that all the MSM, most of the liberal university types and even the President have not critically looked at the other side.   

New Era of Priestly Formation?

 

A new program of priestly formation has been mandated for US seminaries.  We can only pray that such reform will produce the kind of priests that lead God’s people to Him.  I have my doubts as do others.  From the Roman Catholic Blog:

All of these things are good, but unfortunately, it seems like too little, too late. Having two years of Theology is terrific if you are studying the right kind of Theology and have orthodox teachers. Weeding out candidates with homosexual tendencies is a wonderful idea, but why wasn’t this done in the first place, and how can we be sure that these norms will be properly implemented?

Most importantly, what about cases where the fox is guarding the hen house? What if the very people in charge of implementing these guidelines (including bishops) are of dubious orthodoxy, homosexual, or both? Catholic seminaries throughout the country have been documented to have more than their fair share of agenda-driven, dissenting liberals and homosexuals. There are also a lot of well intentioned, well meaning, but poorly formed men in some formation programs; men with lots of degrees, but a poor understanding of sound, orthodox, Catholic Theology. There are also good men, who know the truth, but remain silent. They are afraid to make waves because they know they are outnumbered or that they will pay dearly for not towing the party line.

And isn’t this true as well?

In the past, many priests were poorly schooled in philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, traditional spirituality and the like, and instead trained as social workers with little sense of the supernatural. With such poor formation, the liberal ideas of society quickly invade and take root in the mind, which the often well-intentioned priest or seminarian re-interprets as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence, rather than discussions of personal sin, eternal salvation or damnation, grace, original sin, etc., the priest is only able to talk about the standard social “sins” of the day: racism, sexism, “homophobia”, pollution, etc.

When is the last time that you heard a priest preach on sexual sin or divorce?  We are bombarded with the evils of “secular” sin but not those sins of which Jesus clearly spoke.  Pray for our priests and those considering the priesthood.