mt has been writing about religion and I even got Paul to comment. I'm going to do my take in a bit, but in the meantime a bit from Nude Scientist caught my eye: Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. [1]. Yes, that is right: apparently we're supposed to take His Holiness seriously as an authority on climate change. So the question must be, Was he speaking infallibly at that point?.
[Update: I'm cr*p. See the comments :-) -W]
- Log in to post comments
Actually, this bit caught my eye:
?!?
[It shouldn't really have caught your eye; we've been discussing it here recently and I even predicted it . The ARCUS folk are still predicting levels below 2008 but I don't believe them (and they aren't prepared to put up cash :-). Based on http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/07/sea_ice_again.php a dip below 2008 looks very very unlikely -W]
(Oh, BTW: not sure if you were joking or not...but I think the article is referencing this Pope.)
Mustelids are famous for their drollery, lharris. But if you ask me, Pope Joan is so very first millennium, and now that they've let the Germans in I really don't see why it would be such a big step to Pope Vicki.
[Ha, that was rubbish of me - I totally miseed that in skimming through the article. Whoops -W]
You should have claimed it as deliberate...like I did with the Tokyo Daibutsu being flattened in a storm.
[Honesty will be my undoing -W]