# The Pope endorses science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846 "2007-12-13T13:34:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/1 "2007-12-13T13:34:37Z")
From [here](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490) - apparently the Pope is unaware of the irony of his current statement chastising global warming alarmists: > [@](#): > > warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/2 "2007-12-13T14:07:29Z")
I suspect that the _Daily Mail_ has chosen to spin the actual words, a bit, into a particular direction. Popes typically do not come out and attack or defend one side or another of major arguments; they set out guidelines that (in their opinion) should set the tone for all sides of the discussion. When read in context, rather than excerpted for alarmist effect, I do not see the pope claiming any “skepticism” of AGW, nor do I see any attacks on environmentalists. I see an (almost excessively) even-handed appeal to the leaders of nations to place nice and act responsibly. The complete text (without being chopped up and surrounded by editorial insertions) of his words on the environment are: > [@](#): > > _ **The family, the human community and the environment** _ > > 1. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. _For the human family, this home is the earth_, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. 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. 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. 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. 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 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, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying. > > 2. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. 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. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating. The entire text (released now, but intended to be delivered to world leaders on January 1), is found at [MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE 1 JANUARY 2008](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/3 "2007-12-13T14:18:42Z")
I am also wondering whether part of his message is aimed at a (perhaps European centered) social groups calling for the dismantling of modern society? In the U.S., such groups are pretty small and typically dismissed as cranks, but I get the feeling that they are more politically powerful in Europe. The riots that accompany the various G-8 summits and related events always appear louder and more violent when held ourtside the U.S., although that could be a false impression that I have picked up. And if we are going to pick and choose little snippets of the pope’s letter to quote, why not choose > [@](#): > > The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. Why would he say that “time is short” if he thought AGW was nothing but hype? Criticizing the letter for being so neutral as to be meainingless would seem to be a much more accurate criticism than that leveled by _The Daily Mail_ (and simply reprinted or repeated without evaluation by a number of other news outlets who clearly read only the _Daily Mail_’s excerpt). ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/4 "2007-12-13T17:22:43Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I suspect that the _Daily Mail_ has chosen to spin the actual words, a bit, into a particular direction. [/QUOTE] Thanks for the insight! I do find this tidbit, altho less sensational, still somewhat ironic: > [@](#): > > 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 above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environ ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/5 "2007-12-13T20:04:18Z")
The real story is why the Daily Mail apparently completely put words in the pope’s mouth. They essentially made up lies about what the pope had said. If they wanted to claim that one should interpret the pope as saying what they claimed he said, that would be one thing (still basically wrong, I think but not libelously false). However, instead they made it sound as if the pope had actually said these very things. In fact, the differences between their “paraphrasing” in that article and their actual quotes makes the whole thing kind of funny! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pope-endorses-science/429846/6 "2007-12-13T20:22:29Z")
The Daily Mail’s approach here sort of reminds me of one of the classic Bloom County comic strips. I couldn’t find the original (maybe someone with better google-karma can) but [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Jones) is a description of it: > [@](#): > > His first such endeavor in Bloom County occurred only days after his first introduction to the series, where he hacks into the front page of the New York Times, which has the front page article, “Reagan Calls Women ‘America’s Most Valuable Resource’”. Milo, who accompanies Oliver, immediately alters it on the basis of being “too wordy” and the final edition reads “Reagan Calls Women ‘America’s Little Dumplings’”, sparking nationwide outrage and an attack on the White House by feminists I guess what the pope actually said was just a bit “too wordy” for the Daily Mail’s tastes!