Simon Caldwell is a liar

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more dishonest piece of reporting than this whoppper from Simon Caldwell at the Daily Mail:

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

Needless to say, this story was linked by Drudge and all the other denialists. But the Pope’s actual statement is online, so we can see that Caldwell is lying about it. What the Pope actually said:


We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. … it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves.

Looks like he agrees with Stern about low discount rates.

Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions,

And he thinks you should listen to the IPCC.

and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken

“Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions.” That seems a bit more sensible than the position of the US government …

Comments

  1. #1 Lee
    December 12, 2007

    This quote seems spot-on as well. “time is short” “need to intensify dialog” “stewardship of the earth’s energy resources” “reassess high levels fo consumption”
    That seems pretty directly and specifically in contradiction to what Caldwell claims.

    “The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency.”

  2. #2 pough
    December 12, 2007

    Is he a liar or is he just so stupid that he’s doing a Homer Simpson-like “I think he’s talking to you”?

  3. #3 Lance
    December 12, 2007

    After reading the statement I tend to agree that it leans more towards endorsing the “consensus” view. I would say that Simon Caldwell has strained credibility by choosing just the quotes he thinks he can twist to fit his purposes.

    That said; we care what the Pope thinks about climate change because…?

    This is the same pontiff that has straddled the fence on the theory of evolution. Then there’s stem cell research.

    And need I mention that previous residents of the Vatican have a less than exemplary record of unbiased endorsement of scientific theories. The heliocentric model comes to mind. Well, at least they apologized to Galileo. Albeit 350 years after he was dead.

    I might be more comfortable with the pope on the other side of the issue.You don’t see “His Holiness” listed as a reviewer on many scientific papers.

  4. #4 Lee
    December 12, 2007

    Lance, CALDWELL is the one who seems to care what the Pope thinks about AGW – enough so that he lies about what the Pope says.
    This posting is about Caldwell’s lies. I don’t believe anyone here has said that the Pope’s statement constitutes evidence one way or the other on the science of AGW.

  5. #5 Steve Reuland
    December 12, 2007

    After reading the statement I tend to agree that it leans more towards endorsing the “consensus” view. I would say that Simon Caldwell has strained credibility by choosing just the quotes he thinks he can twist to fit his purposes.

    Having read the statement as well, I’d say this is if anything an understatement. In particular, the comment “choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions,” when read in context, is clearly a denunciation of the anti-Kyoto and anti-UN crowd.

    I have to agree with Tim, the dishonesty of Caldwell’s piece is stunning. It has got to be one of the most brazenly deceitful articles I’ve ever seen.

  6. #6 Lance
    December 12, 2007

    Lee,

    Relax those tensed jaw muscles, I was further criticizing Caldwell’s claim by pointing out the fact that even if Caldwell was not “lying” about the pope being on the side of AGW skepticism it would hardly carry weight as to the validity of the theory.

    It was along the lines of “You’re wrong and even if you were right, so what.”

  7. #7 Thom
    December 12, 2007

    I think it’s rude and unfair to call Caldwell a liar. He also wrote a a story that hyped the bogus link between abortions and breast cancer.

    I think the term “right-wing hack” is more appropriate.

  8. #8 bigcitylib
    December 12, 2007

    Personally, I care what the Pope thinks on this issue because millions of Catholics do. Religious Americans and, closer to home, Canadians are really the last refuge of the denialist movement, and they are gradually coming around on the issue. If The Pope can help accomplish this a little quicker, then more power to him.

  9. #9 Kevin
    December 12, 2007

    It certainly appears like Caldwell interpreted the Pope’s speech ‘loosely’.

    I am curious though why you, Tim, chose not to quote the Pope on the central premise of the entire piece:

    “Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.”

    Not that I care a hill of beans for the Pope per se, but at least he’s consistently against the position that most environmental groups have taken, with nature as some form of end in itself.

  10. #10 Lance
    December 12, 2007

    BCL,

    I don’t imagine there is a grand left-wing conspiracy to dupe the world into believing in climate change. Such thinking would be simplistic and inaccurate.

    Referring to a “denialist movement” is equally vacuous. I am not religious, in fact I am an atheist, and I don’t consider myself part of any “movement”. Honestly there are no meetings, membership cards or secret handshakes. I won’t go into the reasons why the word denialist is objectionable. I’m sure you are aware that this is a slur.

    I consider your opinions on climate change to be based on your review of the evidence as are mine. I disagree with your assessment of that evidence.

    People can disagree with each other and still treat each other with civility and respect. It just doesn’t seem to happen on this topic very often. Well at least not on this blog.

  11. #11 QrazyQat
    December 12, 2007

    When the disagreement is based on one side continually lying and/or doing really horribly poor research and reasoning, why do they deserve respect? “Denialists” is a perfectly reasonable way to describe people like that.

  12. #12 Tim Lambert
    December 12, 2007

    Kevin, I didn’t quote that part because it is, as the Pope states, obvious. The Pope does not disagree with the environmental movement — he thinks we should protect and cultivate the environment.

  13. #13 sg
    December 12, 2007

    and here ladies and gentlemen we have the Pope, leader of a religion which believes its prophet rose from the dead, its God created the world in 6 days, and the Red Sea was parted by an act of God.

    And here, ladies and Gentlemen, is a hack from the Daily Mail, that most worthy of English newspapers, which routinely publishes articles on how Lady Di was killed by the Queen, Gypsies are going to take over the country one caravan at a time, and Romanian HIV patients are going to bring down the country.

    This reporter would like to warn you all that the Pope wants all beliefs to be based on evidence, and not dubious ideology.

  14. #14 John Mashey
    December 13, 2007

    re: #10 lance
    “Referring to a “denialist movement” is equally vacuous. …I don’t consider myself part of any “movement”. Honestly there are no meetings, membership cards or secret handshakes.”

    Well, no. BCL didn’t say *you* were part of a denialist movement, and indeed there are probably no membership cards or secret handshakes. There are bound to be be meetings, and money changing hands….

    There certainly is:

    a) A flow of money from a fairly small number of funders

    b) Through a modest number of entities

    c) Each of which has a varied selection from a menu of a certain set of people who can be counted on to loudly attack AGW incessantly.

    If you look at any one entity by itself, it’s not obvious that the same people will show up again and again elsewhere, as this is a very tight-coupled web.

    As a tiny, quick example, a sample of a much larger matrix that’s on my to-do list, see the last page (40) of that writeup I did on the Monckton/Schulte affair.

    It shows a 9×17 matrix of the 9 people involved in SPPI, and the 17 climate-change-relevant entities in which those people are involved. [These entities either have a consistent anti-AGW voice as part of a larger organization, or exist only to attack AGW.]
    One of them (Fraser) is located in Canada, and is well-known to readers there.
    Some are real organizations, others are basically a website and a few people.

    In the 9×17 = 153 cells, 37 are marked with an X, or an average of 4+ entities/person, although the distribution is right-skewed:
    #orgs people
    1 Monckton [he’s new to this game]

    2 Carter, D’Aleo, Ferguson

    3 Kininmonth

    4 Idso, O’Brien < --mean

    8 Legates

    11 Soon [a prolific joiner]

    Looked at the other way, the top interconnected entities here are:
    #people org

    9 SPPI (of course, that's how this was generated)

    4 Fraser, George C. Marshall, Tech Central Station <-popular

    3 Heartland

    Again, this is a small sample around SPPI (a new entity), and I did it in a hurry, and I may have missed some. If you do the larger matrix, more people and organizations will show up, but the same people will show up lots of places. Since that paper was really about Monckton, Schulte and Ferguson (SPPI), and SPPI was too new to have its funding sources visible, I didn't do the other matrix of funder vs organization.

    But for fun, try looking them up in:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org
    OR
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

    You may see a few of the same names occur now and then… if you’re not in the US, you might not recognize the Western Fuels Association [coal], which funded World Climate Report, for example. You might recognize ExxonMobil.

    Most of these are in the US, primarily around Washington, DC [some of these entities are really just lobbying outfits, several are located on K-street or nearby (i.e., high-rent district)], but Canada has at least one of its own, and I’ve elsewhere mentioned the one I know of in the UK {Scientific Alliance]. OZ and NZ are pikers by comparison.

    Finally, certain of the entities named there get or have gotten money from tobacco firms and do all they can to cast doubt on any science around smoking/disease links… and a lot of the tactics come right from the tobacco playbook [see Allan Brandt: The Cigarette Century], and unlike the AGW fight, we have access to many *internal* documents from the tobacco wars, so we know where this stuff comes from, especially as some of the same entities and people are involved.

    So, if someone is sure there is nothing like a denialist movement, they are probably just as sure there was never any effort by the tobacco companies to mislead anybody…

  15. #15 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Looks like he agrees with Stern about low discount rates.
    So we should get the Pope to design a long term-discount model, Tim?’

    According to that comment the Pope thinks the discount rate the UK treasury uses as a reference point is wrong, while the one Stern used (1/70 below) is the correct one.

    For all those people at this site who don’t really understand much about numbers etc…. like Gouldiechops, Hoggsie, Delgardo (who’s star sign is Aquarius)and Rabbet, Stern used a cost of capital 1/70 below the accepted standard.

  16. #16 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    “Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.”

    Looks like greenpeace, the whalewtachers society and the Austrlain greens aren’t getting a first row ticket to the Midnight mass in Rome this month

  17. #17 cce
    December 13, 2007

    I think the next sentence (which Tim did quote), is the actual central message, i.e. what our relationship with the environment is or should be, not would it isn’t or should not be.

    “Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves.”

  18. #18 Tim Lambert
    December 13, 2007

    JC: “Stern used a cost of capital 1/70 below the accepted standard.”

    No he didn’t.

  19. #19 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    yes he did Tim.

    UK treasury recomended rate for long term intergenerational account is about 7%. Stern’s rate a fat solid .1%

    Yet still using that rate, applying Stern’s imbedded science we come away with the point that GDP should be left unmolested.

  20. #20 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Here:

    If you apply a 0.1% discount rate (Stern’s figure) rather than, say, a 5% discount rate (my suggestion, which matches the return on Treasury bills – or, put another way, the figure people apply themselves when considering the value of money today versus the value of money tomorrow) or a 3% discount rate (Nordhaus’s figure, although he is happy to confess that other figures are perfectly defensible), then you’re going to get a huge price tag for global warming. Apply higher discount rates, and the price tag deflates to such an extent that it’s impossible to justify spending anything near what Stern wants us to spend to reduce greenhouse gas emission

    Moreover Stern was an economist in th 80’s who predicted that thattchers economic polices would prove a disaster , an unmitigated disaster. I am not sure if this man’s powers of analysis should in any way be taken seriously.

  21. #21 Adam
    December 13, 2007

    Thom, as Ben Goldacre points out, the Daily Mail is carrying out a massive task to place everything into one of two categories. Those that cause, or those that cure, cancer. However I agree that in such a paper, the chances of it falling in the cause category were probably higher than 50%.

  22. #22 disinterestedobserver
    December 13, 2007

    Re no 13, I think that it is not necessary for catholics to actually believe that the world was created in 6 days, and most catholics would see this as a metaphor.

    According to a Catholic encyclopedia”: ” Accordingly, we find some theologians following St. Augustine (In Gen. ad litt., I), that the six days signify only a logical (not a real) succession, i.e. in the order in which the creative works were manifested to the angels. Others interpret the days as indefinite cosmical periods. Others, though these are at present a vanishing number, still follow the literal interpretation. ”

    I suspect the parting of the Red Sea could also be given some form of rational explanation in catholic thinking.

    Christ rising from the dead, however, is pretty central.

  23. #23 Eddie
    December 13, 2007

    I know you were talking about the NZCSC in a recent post — here’s a winner from their site (it was headlined along with the Calder piece) from Tim Ball. It’s his explanation for how this year’s dramatic Arctic ice melt is actually within natural variability:

    “In 2005 we heard that an area of Arctic ice the size Texas melted more than in 2004. Horrors! Catastrophe! The polar bears will be dead very soon. But what is the reality? Well this melt is well within natural variability and a very small portion of the total annual melt.”

    Even I could spot the whopper here. Awesome!

  24. #24 Vagueofgodalming
    December 13, 2007

    John Mashey addressed the half of Bigcitylib’s assertion that Lance objected to.

    I’d be interested, though, to know about the other half: is the Anglo-Saxon right (supported by the odd German schoolteacher and Danish maverick) really the last main holdout against action on GW? For example, what are the dynamics behind China’s, or India’s current stance (accept Kyoto, oppose mandatory limits for themselves)? I have been expecting these countries to move fairly rapidly (i.e. a few years, rather than the timescale of Bali) towards wanting mandatory limits for all countries, simply because they are going to have the facts of AGW shoved more firmly in their faces (compared to the US) by the dry-up of the Himalayas. But I don’t *know*, because I don’t understand the internal politics of these countries, or, really, how to go about finding out in an efficient way. It’s probably in all our interests to find out, though.

  25. #25 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2007

    “UK treasury recomended rate for long term intergenerational account is about 7%. Stern’s rate a fat solid .1%

    Yet still using that rate, applying Stern’s imbedded science we come away with the point that GDP should be left unmolested.”

    In the text of the Stern Report there’s a very poorly written section on the time value of money (which is not the same as the cost of capital) in which Stern argues for an extremely low value.

    However in the economic modeling – as JC would know if he’d read the accompany technical paper – the modellers used the Treasury discount rate. (Actually, they ran the model several hundred times with slightly different input values, including allowing the discount rate to vary by 1-2% either side of the Treasury rate.)

    The modelling results quoted are the average of those hundreds of simulations.

    JC has made this claim before, he’s been corrected before. If he makes it again in future, readers can draw their own conclusions.

  26. #26 bigcitylib
    December 13, 2007

    Vague,

    Let me be more precise. In Canada surveys have shown that about 80% of the population would agree that climate change is happening, is a serious issue, and that the country should be on board with Kyoto or a Kyoto like international agreement. The largest bulk of the remaining 20% is about half of the country’s Conservative party base, mostly social conservatives. I suspect that there is a more or less similar break-down in the U.S.

    Of course what drives the politics of inaction on this issue goes beyond a few recalcitrant fundies, but insofar as doing nothing has some measure of POPULAR support, this is where that support lies.

    And, if you want to get an idea of the very small pool of
    players in the “movement”, or whatever you want to call it, get a load of the signatories to this new “plea for reason”:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

    Of the hundred “scientists” that signed, I immediately recognized about three quarters.

  27. #27 bigcitylib
    December 13, 2007

    And what I meant to say, but didn’t because its early, is that the other half of the Conservative base is supportive of plans to fight AGW. This too is similar to the U.S. where a “Green Evangelical” movement has sprouted.

  28. #28 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Gouldiechops:

    Stern never said what the used as the discount rate although he made some vague excuse as to why.If your so sure of yourself please cite the section and page where he discusses this topic.

    In the text of the Stern Report there’s a very poorly written section on the time value of money (which is not the same as the cost of capital) in which Stern argues for an extremely low value.

    Good one Gouldiechops., He argues for a very low value yet you suggest he used the appropriate rate. And cost of capital in this instance means the same thing as the discount rate.

    However in the economic modeling – as JC would know if he’d read the accompany technical paper – the modellers used the Treasury discount rate.
    No he didn’t and that runs counter to point you made about Stern arguing for a low discount rate.

  29. #29 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2007

    Cost of capital is the same as the discount rate. Neither are the same as the time value of money which is what Stern talked about.

    “However in the economic modeling – as JC would know if he’d read the accompany technical paper – the modellers used the Treasury discount rate. No he didn’t and that runs counter to point you made about Stern arguing for a low discount rate.”

    You state this with absolute certainty. I have actually read the paper in question – and a while back quoted from it here in response to Tim Curtin.

    Have you read the paper?

    If so, I’m sure you’ll have no difficulty providing a link to it and quoting the sections you believe support your claim.

  30. #30 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2007

    Just so we’re clear here. I am NOT talking about the Stern report I’m talking about the supporting paper written by people who ran the PAGE 2002 IAM economic modeling exercise.

  31. #31 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Just so we’re clear I am talkking about the Stern report.

    And yes. I state it with reasoanble certainty.

    Here’s is an excerpt from Richard Tol’s excellent summary on the shortcomings and incompetency of Stern’s report> Please note the last point made, Gouldie chops.

    Conclusion
    In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of
    climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic
    studies. In this sense, the Stern Review reminds one of Lomborg (2001). The discount
    rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are
    occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but
    none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and
    incompetent.
    This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions
    should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However,
    unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate
    change and climate policy – and may well further polarize the debate.
    6 According to Hope (personal communication, 2006), the marginal damage cost was calculated using a
    0.1% rate of pure time preference.

  32. #32 Big Dan
    December 13, 2007

    Good catch!

  33. #33 sg
    December 13, 2007

    disinterestedobserver, I thought by now the resurrection was symbolic too, but there you go… not keeping up with my reading, it would appear – or getting ahead of myself. It’s hard to keep all the fantasies straight in my head. But your little quote about angels serves to underline my point, I think.

  34. #34 bigcitylib
    December 13, 2007

    JC,

    That’s the early Tol. More recently, he has written:

    “The major messages of the Review’s assessment of the current science are sound.”

    While scientists like Pielke Sr. and Christy seemed to have gone off the deep end, Tol seems to have come in from the cold.

  35. #35 luminous beauty
    December 13, 2007

    sg,

    I may be a few centuries out of date, but I recall something about the resurrected body of Christ being the Catholic Church. Symbolically, and literally in the matter of communion. But then, in religion, symbols are more real than either crackers and grape juice or flesh and blood.

  36. #36 Allen
    December 13, 2007

    Maybe the Pope’s interest is in the more souls saved, the fewer then burning for eternity in the fires of hell. (?) Gosh, I’m no scientists so I don’t know how you’d make a human body burn forever but considering the numbers of non-Christians over human history and in the future, that would be one enormous source of greenhouse gases!

  37. #37 sg
    December 13, 2007

    thank you for that theological correction, luminous beauty. But in the debate about global warming I suspect flesh and blood is more real than symbols or ideology, something I would have thought the pope would realise, though the Daily Mail surely never will.

    Allen: maybe the Catholic church should get behind the carbon trading scheme. Once it gets up and running they can abolish original sin by papal dictat and live on the carbon offsets for the rest of eternity!

  38. #38 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2007

    “According to Hope (personal communication, 2006), the marginal damage cost was calculated using a 0.1% rate of pure time preference.”

    And for about the third time (this go round) the pure time preference is a subcomponent of the discount rate.

  39. #39 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Bigcitylib

    Tol was never in the cold, he was always a warmer. Which is hardly the point. the real issue is if Stern used a cost of capital rate 1`/70 that normally used. Let me know if this was wrong:

    According to Hope (personal communication, 2006), the marginal damage cost was calculated using a 0.1% rate of pure time preference.

    Gouldiechops, stop being so friggen evasive.

    And for about the third time (this go round) the pure time preference is a subcomponent of the discount rate.

    Read the quote again and tell us he used the correct rate.

    More to the point I understand a reasonable amount of finance stuff so give me the pages in the Stern report where he actually explains the rate used and if the rate was the standard rate used in discounting long dated time preferences.

    No stalling on this now.

    Let’s be very clear about this, the “economist” who predicted Maggie’s economic polices would be a disaster used a discount rate 1/70 the cost of capital in evalating the costs involved from GW.

  40. #40 bigcitylib
    December 13, 2007

    Jc wrote:

    “Tol was never in the cold, he was always a warmer. Which is hardly the point. the real issue is if Stern used a cost of capital rate 1`/70 that normally used. Let me know if this was wrong.”

    I call horseshit. Just 3 months ago, Tol was praising Kristen Byrnes and hanging with McIntyre’s bunch He’s come around,and is suddenly advocating a carbon tax, partly due to his reading of Weitzman. Hell, he might have even got a decent haircut.

    The climate science consensus is in; the economics consensus is coming in. Even Pielke Jr. is moving.

    Deal with it.

  41. #41 Jc
    December 13, 2007

    Lib:
    Why would supporting a carbon tax invalidate a criticism of Stern?

    I support a carbon tax and think Stern is a crock of shit from an economic stand point that would get us into more trouble.

    I don’t really think you understand.

  42. #42 Caledonian
    December 13, 2007

    The Pope does not disagree with the environmental movement

    Of course the Pope disagrees with the environmental movement! It’s just that he shares some of the concerns and goals of that movement, too.

  43. #43 rogmath
    December 14, 2007

    Has it ever occurred to anyone that global warming is not good for Catholic business, so to speak? It invites social upheaval, destruction of areas and transplantation of populations that the Church is working heavily or would like to, and the likelihood that materialist explanations for earthly matters will gain a greater foothold.

  44. #44 Ian Gould
    December 14, 2007

    So, I contacted Dr. Chris hope who did the modeling and asked him to comment on this thread.

    His response:

    “Dear Ian,

    Thanks for your interest in my work. The Stern review team used a real pure time preference (PTP) rate of 0.1% per year, coupled with an elasticity of marginal utility of consumption (EMUC) of -1, which gives a real consumption discount rate of about 1.5% per year (‘about’ because it varies over time with variations in per capita GDP growth rates).

    The PAGE2002 model can handle uncertain PTP and EMUC rates, and I have made many other runs with PTP rates in the range of 0 to 3% and EMUCs of -0.5 to -2. Let me know if these are of interest to you and I can send you a paper.”

  45. #45 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 14, 2007

    bigcitylib posts:

    [[Religious Americans and, closer to home, Canadians are really the last refuge of the denialist movement, and they are gradually coming around on the issue. ]]

    As a religious American myself, I don’t think your characterization of us is at all correct. Maybe you missed it when 83 evangelical leaders recently issued a statement saying Christians ought to act to prevent global warming? Note, also, that John T. Houghton of IPCC fame (and the author of The Physics of Atmospheres and Global Warming: The Complete Briefing) is an evangelical Christian, although not an American.

  46. #46 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 14, 2007

    sg posts:

    [[and here ladies and gentlemen we have the Pope, leader of a religion which believes its prophet rose from the dead, its God created the world in 6 days, and the Red Sea was parted by an act of God.]]

    We believe Jesus is God, not just a prophet, and yes, that he did rise from the dead. Ditto the Red Sea parting. These are called “miracles,” and involve temporary, local suspension of natural law. That’s why saying that they violate natural law is kind of a dumb argument.

    It’s not necessary for Christians to believe that Earth was created in six literal days. I don’t, and probably most Christians don’t.

  47. #47 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 14, 2007

    jc posts:

    [[Moreover Stern was an economist in th 80’s who predicted that thattchers economic polices would prove a disaster , an unmitigated disaster.]]

    You’re probably more inclined to view double-digit unemployment as a disaster if you’re one of the unemployed.

  48. #48 bigcitylib
    December 14, 2007

    The letter is exactly what I am referring to when I talk about evangelicals “coming around”. Note how much flack these guys have taken on the issue since, however.

  49. #49 Marion Delgado
    December 14, 2007

    I would like to say, again, that I think it will repay people more not to respond to every talking point of the lifeless trolls, but rather to gather a few of them, answer them, and later link to the answer. Just my 2c.

  50. #50 danny bloom
    December 16, 2007

    when all is said and done we just might to start thinking about polar cities for survivors of global warming. here is my take on them. feedback welcome pro and con , here or on my blog =-= http://pcillu101.blogspot.com

  51. #51 John Mashey
    December 16, 2007

    Since Danny asks for feedback:

    FACTS
    1) Google: pcillu101
    Sample a few to form an opinion.

    2) Wikipedia used to have an article about Danny Bloom, which only said that he was Director of the Polar Cities Research Institute.

    The article got tagged for speedy deletion, and is gone.

    UNKNOWNS
    3) The size and nature of the “Polar Cities Research Institute” are unclear.

    OPINIONS
    4) Truly ardent, persistent linkspam/blogflogging, injected into discussions whose relevance is far from clear.

    5) If one actually cares about global environment issues, this effort seems among those to contribute positively. [Yes, we know Lovelock has many ideas. So does Freeman Dyson. Rather than working on penny-ante projects for 2500AD, do something serious like Dyson Spheres. Of course, there might be shorter-term projectsthat most might consider more relevant.]

  52. #52 Sparrow (in the coal mine)
    December 28, 2007

    I performed a rundown on Logical Science of various news outlets and it’s amazing how many large news outlets screwed up and reported the Daily Mails article as fact.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.