Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the controlling-the-papacy dept.

Ed Mazza writes that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change and "leave science to the scientists." Santorum's comments come as the Pope, who holds a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist before turning to the priesthood, has become increasingly vocal about climate change. "The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists," says Santorum, "and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality, When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible."

But Santorum's not a scientist either so using Santorum's own logic why is Santorum more qualified than the Pope to discuss climate change? "I guess the question would be, if he shouldn't talk about it, should you?" asked Chris Wallace of Fox News. "Politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers," answered Santorum, adding that while "the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about," he questions the Pope's use of his moral authority to combat the issue of climate change.. Santorum — a devout Catholic — disagrees with the Pope's stance that climate change is man-made and has often called climate science "political science," arguing that a scientific consensus on climate change underscores this point. "All of this certainty, which is what bothers me about the debate, the idea that science is settled," says Santorum. "Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that's political science, not real science."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:17PM (#194157)

    Come on. This submission is just plain dumb.

    Why the hell is this submission on the SN front page?

    We don't care about what Rick Santorum thinks.

    We don't care about what Pope Francis thinks.

    We don't care about what they think about each other.

    We don't care about climate change.

    We don't care about what they think about climate change.

    Why the hell is this submission on the SN front page?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Troll=1, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by janrinok on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:19PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:19PM (#194160) Journal

    Because someone wrote something more meaningful than you did, I guess.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:27PM (#194165)

      There is no problem with the quantity of submissions. There are lots of good ones in the queue. The problem is that really bad ones like this keep on ending up on the front page. Submitting more good stories, when there are already many good in the queue, won't do anything to fix the problem of really bad submissions being promoted.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:43PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:43PM (#194175) Journal

        You seem to think that having 8 subs in the queue is a lot.

        When the site started, we could expect to have 30+ in the queue each day. The nagger ('Only x submissions in the queue') is programmed to show on the front page when we go below 20. I cannot remember a day when the nagger has not displayed for many months. If you want to improve the quality of this site we need more quality submissions to work with, and fewer comments like yours insulting others or trying to force your opinions on the rest of the community. It's not the way we roll here.

        You've made your case in 2 stories now. We've heard you but, respectfully, don't agree with you. Now can you leave the other stories to be discussed in a civilised manner please?

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:38PM

          by isostatic (365) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:38PM (#194219) Journal

          I don't give a stuff about how many submissions there are. There's no law saying that SN should have 10 stories a day. If something good comes in, post it.

          • (Score: 2) by bart9h on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:25PM

            by bart9h (767) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:25PM (#194251)

            I have to agree with this.

            If it's really a slow news day, I see no problem if there's only two or three stories on a whole day.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:36AM

              by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:36AM (#194333)

              If it's really a slow news day, I see no problem if there's only two or three stories on a whole day.

              The site needs to appeal to more than an extremely narrow range of interests to maintain readers. There are other sites for that. If someone does have only such narrow interests, it is probably to their benefit, and ours, for boundaries to be stretched by stories they may not consider to be the type of story this site should cover, whatever that is supposed to be. I consider this site to be a site where intelligent people discuss things of interest, whether they be science or tech or events that will have an effect on our lives.
              Aside from that, the fact that a complete ass like Rick Santorum can get major media coverage and can even get votes in a campaign for president is something that everyone should be concerned about.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:26PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:26PM (#194163) Journal

    Well, climate change is something that is being widely tracked by thousands of scientists around the world. The data being collected is huge. So, on that score it is exactly what should be on the front page of a site that is "news for nerds." Second, it's talking about policy on scientific matters being left to scientists, because they are more knowledgeable on the subject and can speak with authority; there is the added irony of a non-scientist decrying the input of an actual scientist on a scientific matter as not being scientific. That's of interest to me as a nerd, because I would really rather have leaders who know what they're talking about when it comes to scientific matters than bloviating airheads. Thus that's at least two major points in favor of the article's making it to the front page.

    Note, that's irrespective of how you or anyone "feels" about climate change.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:29PM (#194167)

      "Climate change" is not about science. "Climate change" is nothing but politics.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:27PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:27PM (#194210) Journal

        So, when thousands of scientists around the world drill ice cores, take weather readings, examine the fossil record, and all the many, many other things that go into climate research, it doesn't count as science because *you* don't like what the data indicates?

        It shows you don't get the basic concept of science or the scientific method.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:35PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:35PM (#194217) Journal

        "Climate change" is not about science. "Climate change" is nothing but politics.

        Sometimes, to be right, you have to say the opposite.

        "Climate change" is not about science. "Climate change denial" is nothing but politics.

        FTFY!

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by isostatic on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:39PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:39PM (#194220) Journal

      So, on that score it is exactly what should be on the front page of a site that is "news for nerds."

      Sadly, this site is not "news for nerds".

      I wish they'd give Gewg and Hugh Pickens their own authorship accounts, like Jon Katz back in the day. Then we could block them.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:15AM (#194342)

        Are the PgUp and PgDn keys on your device broken?

        I notice that in order to whine, you guys who do that have to
        1) click the link
        2) post a comment on the page.

        Clearly, you don't mind us so much that you will just skip to the next story.

        -- gewg_

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:01PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:01PM (#194234)

      Note, that's irrespective of how you or anyone "feels" about climate change.

      Also, spending a lot of time on how somebody *feels* about climate change makes about as much sense as spending a lot of time on how somebody feels about thunderstorms: It doesn't matter how you feel, that won't change scientists' recommendation to avoid the top of a bald-peaked mountain while one is happening.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:38PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:38PM (#194257)

    We don't care about what Rick Santorum thinks.

    He's hilarious when he tries to be serious, but we can only laugh at him semi-anonymously while online because he's so dumb its like laughing at a retarded person.

    Look up some of the other stuff he's said. He's quite possibly the most mentally disabled person in politics in my lifetime. I do honestly believe there is no one on the national or world stage who is quite as stupid and disconnected from reality, which often leads to him saying stuff that would get a normal person drug tested, or drugged.

    I know darn well not to laugh at mentally weak people in real life, but if a famous retard like Santorum says something funny, its nice to have a semi-anonymous place to giggle about it when its funny. Sometimes he's just hurtful or senseless but this bit of lecturing a chemist about chemistry is hilarious.

    Basically, he's funny because he's so retarded, and for cultural reasons this is the perfect place to laugh at him.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:15AM

      by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:15AM (#194312)

      I do honestly believe there is no one on the national or world stage who is quite as stupid and disconnected from reality, which often leads to him saying stuff that would get a normal person drug tested, or drugged.

      May I introduce the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbot. [smh.com.au]

      --
      Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:20AM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:20AM (#194467)

        Very impressive, but most of his mistakes seem to be of the superficial "engage mouth, then start thinking" variety. So you get comments about some hottie being a hottie even if thats vaguely politically inappropriate. And a little too much honesty, like the UK invading Australia, well if the natives are butthurt they are yelling at the wrong guy and should have "done something about it" hundreds of years ago, now its just being a sore loser.

        Our moron, on the other hand, seems to carefully deeply ponder what to say and rehearse and then out comes:

        Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?

        Given that when our moron concentrates and thinks deeply he sounds dumber than when your moron slips up a little, I think our moron "wins". Although I'll give you credit, for a small nation you do have a world class competitor.

        Maybe another way to phrase it is our guy sounds so dumb most listeners aren't sure if he's serious or badly attempting sarcasm. Although your moron seems reasonable and has good taste. His little MILF girlie is, in fact, kinda cute, even if the press didn't like him pointing out her obvious primary attributes, if he were really stupid he'd call an ugly chick a hottie.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:49AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:49AM (#194322) Journal

      He's quite possibly the most mentally disabled person in politics in my lifetime.

      He is a top contender, but recall that among his contemporaries number Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Dianne Feinstein. And those are only those off the top of my head. We have rather been carrying on de facto affirmative action for the mentally disabled in Congress for some time.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:29AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:29AM (#194374) Homepage
      Had Pat Robertson not dabbled in politics, I'd have to agree with you.

      The weird thing is though, retarted as Robertson may be, and quite positively dangerous in places, not everything he says is downright wrong. Of course, it's only ever pure coincidence that he reaches the right conclusion after applying his own doubly-mangled logic. Sometimes enough random bit flips do leave you with the original number.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by theronb on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:54PM

    by theronb (2596) on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:54PM (#194308)

    The reason that this is "news for nerds" is that Santorum and his anti-science buddies want to remove climate change and other "controversial" subjects they don't like from political discussion and government funding. When they can dictate what science is supported based on the self interests of their corporate supporters, that affects nerds of many backgrounds. It ain't just about climate change.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:16PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:16PM (#194483) Journal

      We're gonna get sued someday if you guys keep insisting this site's tagline is "news for nerds"... ;)

      ...seriously though, remember who owns that phrase now. If they weren't evil enough to try something like that, we probably wouldn't all be here in the first place!