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
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:17PM
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?
(Score: 5, Touché) by janrinok on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:19PM
Because someone wrote something more meaningful than you did, I guess.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:27PM
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
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?
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:38PM
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
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
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
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
"Climate change" is not about science. "Climate change" is nothing but politics.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:27PM
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
"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
notabout science. "Climate change denial" is nothing but politics.FTFY!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by isostatic on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:39PM
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
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
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.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:38PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:18PM
Santorum= Bullshit, More Shit, Piled higher and Deeper.
santorum (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ [spreadingsantorum.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:21PM
Ah, so the question of the earth revolving around the sun is not yet settled? Or is orbital mechanics just political science?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:34PM
No, it's not "settled". Science, by definition, cannot be "settled". Science deals with theories, not fact. Theories cannot be "settled". Therefore science cannot be "settled".
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:20PM
Settling science is core to the method, and nothing useful would happen if we didn't do it. Settled doesn't mean the theory is perfect, in fact it it only weakly implies the theory is even correct. Settled does mean the debate is over though, that all proposed alternatives have been discounted. If you have a novel alternative theory or if you can disprove the settled theory then fire away, but you don't get to just keep throwing peanuts from the gallery because you didn't like the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:01PM
Theories are, by definition, "settled". A "theory" is a hypothesis which has been tested extensively and has yet to be disproven. You must mean "Hypotheses cannot be 'settled'", because a "settled" hypothesis is called a theory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:09PM
Great! Now define the world "settled".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:05PM
Now, here's the thing. Particularly noxious idiots do exist and contest that.
I seem to recall Conservapedia's incredibly disturbed owner-in-chief once claim quite avidly that scientists can't know that gravitational force is proportional to the square of distance between objects. (it was part of a "science is closed minded, only fundamentalist Christians can be open minded" rant)
His own conservative editors couldn't convince him of it through the basic calculus of spherical shells or that simulations of physics at other possible values blowing up quite catastrophically, because his ignorance was as good as their knowledge.
So, yeah. The right-wing infatuation with claiming "scientific" certainty about ideas that are antithetical to the best collated understandings of modern science do go that far sometimes. I have theories about why this happens, but this post is already pretty long-winded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:13PM
This is an active field of research... You may have heard that 95% of the universe is invisible if we accept that relationship?
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/ [case.edu]
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:35PM
Those represent other forces besides direct gravitational interaction. They're accounted for Einstein's formula for general relativity.
Andy Schlafly, by the way, thinks that relativity was invented by liberals to use science to force moral relativism on people. True fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:40PM
Please clarify what "those" and "they" refer to in that sentence because I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:18PM
I mean lambda[uv]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:56PM
Andy Schlafly, by the way, thinks that relativity was invented by liberals to use science to force moral relativism on people. True fact.
I used to laugh at that kind of stuff, but the insight is its not that it was invented but that its forced on people with 10000 bad popular science books explaining its all eastern mysticism and stuff like that, despite nobody in the general public caring beyond Einstein is that crazy hair guy who sticks his tongue out has an accent and is smart as hell.
Compare to something that people really do care about like magnetism, look at all the "fuckin magnets how do they work" stuff on the internet, yet theres no popular science claptrap about stuff people actually want to understand. Now why is that, that editors and publishers appear to like certain physics concepts but not others?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:42AM
Compare to something that people really do care about like magnetism, look at all the "fuckin magnets how do they work" stuff on the internet, yet theres no popular science claptrap about stuff people actually want to understand. Now why is that, that editors and publishers appear to like certain physics concepts but not others?
No one is trying to deny magnets do what they do because that fact hurts their business model?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:41AM
True, but ditto the popular physics axis of eastern mysticism/crystal power, quantum mechanics, and relativity.
Personally I think the electron orbital issues WRT ferromagnetism or perhaps the invention, design, and implementation of powdered ferrite electromagnetic inductor cores COULD be as much of a page turner as any of the average popular science physics books, but "someone" in the publishing ogliopoly insists on shoveling out "relativity for dummies" and "quantum mechanics for dummies" sequel number 5000.
I could even concede the point that maybe cultural relativism is great and if the cathedral wants to preach its an inherent good or even something far fetched like the 5000th shitty sequel of relativity for dummies (that title probably does exist, sadly) would be better than anything else in physics for a popular audience. However, even in that situation, the loonies have a point that a very small number of people (with very bad taste) decide what to shovel and what we'll get to see. Not entirely different than the poisonous effect of record company execs on music.
(Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:48PM
I think you're seeing a conspiracy that isn't there.
Is quantum physics the go-to solution to power your unobtainium drive? Yes. Why? Because no one knows what it is, and the name sounds cool. It's in that area of modern science that is indistinguishable from magic to the average person.
I remember an episode of Get Smart where Max explains to Agent 99 how a gadget works: an electric snake.
99: What does it run on?
Max: Tiny little feet.
99: No, I mean how is it powered?
Max: Transistors
It's the same thing today as it was in the 60's. Explain your magical gadget with a word people have heard before, but don't really know what it is.
The publishing cabal isn't pushing relativity because of some ulterior motive, it's just what the masses want right now. A quick hand waving solution to faster than light travel so that we can get back to Game of Thrones in Space 2: Orgies of the Cosmos.
Wouldn't "quantum morality" be very black and white, the very opposite of relative morality?
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:52PM
Actually quantum morality would be inherently uncertain. You'd never know whether something is moral until you tried it. And in the same situation, you'd find the very same action sometimes to be moral, and sometimes to be immoral.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 10 2015, @07:54PM
Actually quantum morality would be inherently uncertain. You'd never know whether something is moral until you tried it. And in the same situation, you'd find the very same action sometimes to be moral, and sometimes to be immoral.
That would make it a good title for a teen drama TV show. Or a pr0n movie. Maybe a critique of organized religion? Probably best to combine all three, maximize potential audience.
This is turning into my favorite discussion in weeks!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:51AM
If you combine all three, I think you get child porn featuring abusive priests.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:41PM
Maybe the market for a "magnets" book would not be as large as you think? Or maybe it's just that the publishers think it woulf be?
But I suspect the main reason why you don't find such books is that nobody (or at least nobody with the ability to write readable books) has written them. I mean, a book only exists if someone writes it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:48PM
It may well be so. For example, the -exp(-k*R)/R [wikipedia.org] is still a potential function (conserves the energy on closed trajectories) and if the k is very small you aren't going to notice the variation except at huge scales.
I wonder if "dark energy" isn't actually an artefact attempting to provide an explanation to a decaying gravitational interaction at galactic distances.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:45PM
That might explain a lower deceleration of expansion than expected, but it certainly does not explain an acceleration of expansion, as observed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:41PM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:49PM
???
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:12PM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:45AM
Ah, OK, it's your reading comprehension that failed:
Wrong. Here's the relevant quote, with emphasis added:
That is, the lower the gravity, the less the expansion is slowing down. Assuming the same initial expansion rate, a lower deceleration means a faster expansion. However, a lower gravity cannot cause an accelerated expansion.
A car analogy:
If you press the brake less strong, you car will decelerate less, and therefore it will still be faster after a given time. However it will not accelerate; to accelerate you need to press the accelerator. What we've observed is an accelerating car; this cannot be explained by just assuming the driver is putting less force on the break pedal. There must be something that accelerates the car; that something is what we call dark energy.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:50AM
Right. On top of it, I made the mistake to use "dark energy" when in fact I intended to put a blame on "dark matter" as a possible artefact introduced to explain a screened potential gravity law, detectable only at galactic distances . Of course, all just speculations.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:07PM
Orbital Mechanics is science, a group of theories, formulations, calculations and research that try to explain how to maintain a smaller object's orbit around a larger object in space. The Earth revolving around the sun is an instance of an application of orbital science, but not "science" in and of itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:10PM
I learned this from a more detailed site but can't find it at the moment:
http://faculty.fullerton.edu/cmcconnell/Planets.html [fullerton.edu]
Whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is a dumb question. They revolve around each other and there are a number of ways of looking at this, we choose the one easiest to work with so far.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:43PM
Even to say they revolve around each other is to assume a definiteness that is not strictly warranted. It's quite possible to have an accurate theory in which the universe is centered around a particular pingpong ball. It would make doing the math a LOT more difficult, but it can be done. And it is KNOWN (for commonly accepted values of known) that the heliocentric model is wrong. The sun is moving around the galaxy, the galaxy is moving within the local group, the local group is moving towards "The Great Attractor" (which we can't see because there's too much stuff in the way...but it's in the direction of Virgo), etc. But do note the "commonly accepted values". These are normally accepted because they make the math easier, not because they are the only possible way of figuring things. And the "theories" are translations of the math into "English" (or French, Russian, Chinese, Basque, etc.) They didn't start out that way, but it's the math that can be tested against experiment, so it's the math that's the basis of the theory.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:56PM
Many good points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:49PM
The Earth and Sun both revolve around a common barycenter that lies within the Sun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:47AM
If the barycenter lies within the sun, the earth revolves around the sun. Just not around the sun's center.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:36AM
If there is one thing I do know it's that political science is never settled; it feels more like it's in constant evolution.
But if the Vatican is just supposed to engage in questions of morality and theological issues why did they build that big observatory? I am fairly certain they didn't build it for either moral or theological reasons -- or was this like some 18th century version of SETI but instead of aliens they tried to look for God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Observatory [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by penguinoid on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:44AM
Or is orbital mechanics just political science?
Are you kidding? I've never seen a field of science with more spin.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:27PM
Cue an anon's hate for climate discussion.
But what I'm surprised about is that this article [bbc.com] wasn't submitted instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:31PM
This isn't even a submission about climate change. This is a submission about one religious politician bickering about another religious politician. While it might be good fodder for the Huffington Post, it has no place here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:15PM
Why?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:45AM
Because BABY WANTS TO READ ONLY WHAT BABY WANTS TO READ!
*Kicks feet* *Throws spoon*
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:15PM
I read that. Please submit it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:24PM
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7725 [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:21PM
Submit it!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:24PM
Done: https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7725 [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:41PM
Rick Santorum wants something...
So what, I want a pony and my own dragon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:47PM
Too much My Little Pony for you.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:30PM
No, too much My Little Pony would be requesting someone hit Santorum with a magic rainbow and make him less of a nightmare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @10:38PM
Sounds more like Care Bears to me.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:39AM
From attendance at recent campaign events it's more like WhoCares Bears.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:27AM
A pony and a dragon? Hookers and blow!
(Score: 1) by m2o2r2g2 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:13AM
You won't have a pony for long once you get your dragon.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:48PM
I want Santorum to stop talking about the pontiff and leave Poping to the Pope.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:07PM
leave Poping to the Pope
Covering up sex scandals? Maybe we're better off keeping him distracted.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:50PM
And I just want Rick Santorum to stop talking.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2, Funny) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:52PM
Or at least change his name -- why would he willingly keep a name that means "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex." http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/ [spreadingsantorum.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:12PM
He kind of had the name first...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:26PM
and so?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:41AM
This is considered "Insightful" with a +3? Really?
"characterized by or displaying insight; perceptive." (dictionary.com)
I am not a fan of the man either, but this pure ad hominem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:51AM
The +3 includes the Karma modifier. There was only a single +1 moderation involved.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:02PM
... of why the Republican Party in the U.S. is a great embarrassment to the American people (even if many of them don't realize it). Rick Santorum is one of many pus-filled boils and carbuncles on the American body politic. He's simply clueless. Pope Francis is absolutely right in speaking out on climate change. The protection of our planet for future generations is a moral and ethical, one that any pope, but especially Pope Francis, should speak regularly about.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:11PM
> He's simply clueless.
This story is making the rounds, although it was written back in 2012:
Mrs Santorum 'wrote' a "child's book of good manners" [www.ep.tc] that included a forward by Joe Paterno [wikipedia.org] and is packed to the gills with other forms of unintentional irony.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:42PM
I should also have said here that the best thing Rick Santorum could do to help reduce the effect of humanity on climate change is to remove himself and his family from the gene pool. We need a good political murder-suicide to make American politics exciting again.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Tuesday June 09 2015, @10:56PM
There are some decent Republicans. They just don't get screen time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:26AM
> There are some decent Republicans. They just don't get screen time.
Absolutely. Idiocy makes headlines.
But, the GOP leadership holds a significant amount of responsibility for giving the idiots a platform. They could take a page from the democrats' playbook - that party has its kooks too, but they are kept in the margins rather than trotted out on center stage.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by robmullr on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:08PM
"Politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers,"
The Pope is a head of state so he fits the same definition as a person in government. It isn't necessarily his moral authority here being exercised. Hey Santorum, go sit down and color.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:10PM
I can't see where Santorum is coming from, here, and I think it's politically probably unwise for him to piss off his catholic supporters in this way.
When the effects of climate change become worse for the coming 500 years, it's the poor that are going to suffer most.
There are more poor catholics than rich catholics in the world.
Therefore, it's on-topic for Pope Francis to discuss the effects of climate change, and urge the catholics of the world to keep it liveable for the next generations of both poor and rich catholics and other people.
This is the religious/social concept of " stewardship [wikipedia.org] " that is also in the Bible, basically, "it's God's world and we have to take care of it for our children".
I am not very familiar with mr. Santorum other than he's a religious USA republican politician, so what is his social/religious viewpoint on the "stewardship of the earth" concept?
"It's OK if we destroy our only habitat, because God loves (some of) us and He'll make a new one for us to play with" ??? Sounds a bit ... juvenile ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:20PM
The most likely effect of CO2 is more clouds (to compensate any additional energy retention with albedo) and a more temperate climate across the globe (if it does the things that have been claimed, it will be like a grease that lets the heat spread around). In the long run it should require fewer resources to be comfortable. Essentially the earth will become more like Venus, but without the super thick atmosphere that makes it so hot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:39PM
What exactly are you basing that on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:46PM
Venus has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, adding CO2 will tend to make the Earth more like Venus. Whether the amounts we are talking about are sufficient to make a difference, I don't know.
What I worry is that there is some feedback that leads to more volcanic eruptions or other types of outgassing from the Earth that will thicken the atmosphere to the point it is a problem for us. I still wonder why the pictures of dinosaurs I looked at as a kid so often had erupting volcanoes in the background. A much thicker atmosphere back then would actually explain a lot (the dino blood pressure problem, etc).
(Score: 1) by ksarka on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:29PM
Climate change is bad not because the constitution of atmosphere is changing; it's bad because the ice caps are melting, the temperature is increasing (at the moment it is balanced out by the heat absorption of melting ice, will rapidly bump up shortly), the oceans are getting more and more acidic (all calcite based structures are dissolving, the species depending on them for survival are dying out), the water levels are increasing (currently the fish are massively migrating north, Faroe islands had seen the biggest yield of fish ever in 2014), the land-based species are either migrating or dying out.
Oh, and CO2 does not do anything towards cloud formation. It's the particulate matter (some are good (like sulfur and ammonia based clouds), some are bad - soot is very efficient cloud formation agent, but it also tends to deposit quickly, covering everything with a dark coating, absorbing and capturing heat). I'm not gonna talk about weather extremes as a negative side of climate change -- I see it as if the planet is actively trying to fight the cancer that had spread on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:28AM
Yes, as I mentioned I worry that something like this could lead to volcanic activity as all that mass is moved.
Albedo is the main negative feedback the system has to work with. Anything that pushes the energy density of the atmosphere too high will likely increase albedo in some way to bring us back to the equilibrium state. Unfortunately, we don't have enough understanding to make this quantitative but what else do you think the mechanism could be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:30PM
And that equilibrium state will be at higher and higher temperatures as CO2 concentrations increase. You seem to be working with a definition of "equilibrium state" that suggests global temperatures won't change; today's thermal equilibrium state is not the same as it was in the past, and its not the same as it will be in the future either. The thermal equilibrium state is basically wherever heat radiation (loss to space) is maximized, as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, more heat remains trapped, allowing less to radiate to space, which brings the thermal equilibrium point higher and higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:07PM
I think this depends upon input energy from the sun, and mass of the atmosphere. The reason is that if you take the Magellan data [1] (It doesn't really matter which probe you use because Venus has an extremely stable and uniform atmosphere [2]) and apply the 1976 US standard atmosphere [3] you can get very close to the Venus pressure-temperature profile (and most of the deviation that is there is probably locally due to the clouds).
You can even use earth surface temperature/pressure (t0 and p0) and simply multiply by the ratio expected for the two planets with no atmosphere at all [4]: 1.176
So the three possible explanations I can think of are that
1) this is coincidental
2) there is no greenhouse effect as claimed in that link
3) there is an equilibrium state being maintained (eg if CO2 increases the heat held by the atmosphere the Venus system has compensated by increasing albedo with that worldwide layer of clouds)
In the latter case (my preferred explanation) sustained higher/lower temperatures in the past must be due to alterations in atmosphere thickness or output of the sun.
[1] http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/PDS/data/mg_2401/data/mgn_abs.dat [nmsu.edu]
[2] https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7856&cid=194350 [soylentnews.org]
[3] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2UKsBO-ZMVgQV83S2loaGs4dnc/edit?pli=1 [google.com]
[4] http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html [blogspot.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:13PM
You said that with some authority.
The most likely effect of CO2 is more clouds (to compensate any additional energy retention with albedo)
More clouds? srsly? how does that work, then? (please give chapter and paragraph of the IPCC AR5 Working Group I report where it says CO2 increases cloud formation).
if it does the things that have been claimed,
Svante Arrhenius must have been a liar then, when he wrote about the greenhouse effect of CO2 in 1906. (yes, 1906. not 2006.):
(editors: Arrhenius has been dead for 88 years so I think it's safe to quote this much from his book. And thanks for the UTF-8 support!)
tl;dr version or for the non-100-year-ago-Swedish-readers is this somewhat related xkcd cartoon: http://xkcd.com/1379/ (the one with the Ice Age Units) [xkcd.com]
In the long run it should require fewer resources to be comfortable.
I did not understand this sentence. Why should it require fewer resources to be comfortable?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 09 2015, @10:34PM
Plenty of .edu and .gov links supporting that can be found by googling for ``increase in global temperature will increase precipitation''.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:07PM
Check out figure 13 here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p07903/abstract [wiley.com]
On Venus, latitude and time of day are only extremely weakly related to temperature. Actually, barely at all. Why do you think this is so?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:59AM
Actually, Figure 8 makes my point even better:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p07903/abstract [wiley.com] [wiley.com]
So on the Earth, I expect the effect of CO2 to be lower temperature near the equator and higher near the poles. both regions will move towards mid-latitude temps. Why? CO2 absorbing/emitting IR is an efficient way to transfer energy around. The average temperature be the same, because non-equilibrium energy content is obviously not stable. If energy accumulates due to this process, there will be something, I would guess increased albedo from clouds (just like Venus has lots of CO2 and very thick clouds), that will take care of any issues there. Although it is possible that the atmosphere will thicken somehow (volcanoes?) to increase the energy it can hold. That, would be a problem.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:41PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:25PM
I think it's politically probably unwise
You could abstract that argument out of global warming and into something completely separate like economics, where hes a champion of a party deeply mired in prosperity gospel and generally speaking an economic policy of "F the poor we took their money ha ha".
If there's anyone left in the 500 million followers of "Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."" who don't already hate Santorum and all he stands for, there's probably nothing Santorum can do or say that'll ever make them oppose him. Anyone in the church with two neurons to rub together already abandoned him because of his strong anti-Christian beliefs.
Somehow I don't think an anti-christian disagreeing with a former scientist pope, about science, is likely to lower his status among christians any lower than it already is for economic or moral or ethical reasons. "OK, reason 4, or is it 10, or 100, for seeing Mr Santorum as an anti-christian agent of Satan" isn't going to change much in the long run.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:27PM
> I think it's politically probably unwise for him to piss off his catholic supporters in this way.
Despite being catholic himself, his base is evangelical christians. [nytimes.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:36PM
Santorum seems to be an attorney. The pope is a chemist. I can tell you that one of these knows the scientific method much more likely than the other.
(Hell must be frozen solid btw as the pope says things that make sense. Finally!)
(Score: 1, Redundant) by jmorris on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:18AM
You are making the same mistake many on our side did by allying themselves with the Pope back in the Cold War. Back then Reagan and Thatcher found a useful ally in Pope Paul II and made good use of that. But they should have realized that by rescuing the Papacy from the decline and obscurity it was collapsing into at the time that Pope Paul was a once in a lifetime fluke and future ones would use the newfound authority to questionable purpose.
And all three made a fatal mistake by fighting the Cold War against the Soviets in Russia while giving the Communists delving within their societies a pass, especially the Pope failing to stamp out Liberation Theology which has lead directly to the current wretched situation of a Communist Pope. Now that entire institution is consumed by the Long March through the Institutions along with the U.S. which has a Communist POTUS. But the history of the Catholic Church has been one of service to Evil far more than doing good works in the rare periods when it isn't useless or worse. England was of course long since toast, Thatcher being their once in a lifetime electoral oddity.
But while the Pope might be Communist, he is still leading a Catholic organization so you should be careful how much additional moral authority YOU grant the Church just because he now agrees with you on AGW and income redistribution. Suspect you won't ever like his positions on sexual morality for example.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ryuugami on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:40PM
So we shouldn't listen to the Pope talking about science because he's a Pope, not a scientist.
But we shouldn't listen to the scientists talking about science either, because they can't be trusted?
I guess we should all just listen to the politicians, they obviously know best.
At least we got him to admit that political science is not real science.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Tuesday June 09 2015, @07:52PM
So Santorum which has the qualification of MBA, Juris Doctor, and talking hot air vs Francis that has the qualification of a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist. Now *drumbeat* who will I believe in an issue that definitely involves chemistry?
Perhaps Santorum can ask the intelligently designed CO2 molecules on that :P
The issue at stake is likely to be able to rule the debate on climate change without tough competition. Remember which party that used government power to silence scientists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:03PM
Underdeterminism is roughly that all science relies on other science to make its statement. There's nothing for certain that says one thing in science is absolutely right and science adapts itself to new discovers. Science does not prove what will happen or what exists. It only offers a very reliable prediction mechanism.
But to use underdeterministic rhetoric here as a disproof of a specific topic and not a disproof of everything is not using the concept accurately. To be honest though, I think he just heard telling of the indeterminate nature of science and says that without looking into why it is indeterminate.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:14PM
Kettle
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday June 09 2015, @11:56PM
Can you say "excommunicate"?
I knew you could.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:24AM
Last time he ran for president, he made a comment in a TV show about how in the Netherlands, the elderly all wear bracelets with "Do not Euthanase" because otherwise they'd run the risk of undergoing euthanasia if found unconscious.
I'm Dutch. To me, the scary part of that is not that it is not true. The scary part is not that this is further from the truth than the Pioneers are from Earth.
The scary part is 2 things: him and his audience.
Santorum: he actually believes this bullshit. Worse, since he clearly has no clue about the Netherlands, he is clearly relying on and trusting people that, basically, bullshit to him. And he takes their words as gospel. Scary part 1 is not that he's an idiot, it's that he cannot get remotely competent advisers.
Secondly, the audience was receptive to this.
So the fact that he's saying weird, incoherent and/or blatantly false stuff is no longer surprising to me. But it's still saddening to see that such a person has an audience.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:48PM
One day she read in an American magazine - it may have been Time but I do not clearly recall - that in Newfoundland, there is one day each year when every Newfie can have sex with anyone they want to.
I am absolutely serious: she showed me the article, I saw it with my own eyes.
In reality the Newfoundlanders are staunchly religious people. Bonita was raised in the Salvation Army. Also predominant are the Catholic and Anglican churches. There is an Islamic mosque in St. John's.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:36PM
Leave science to the scientists, he says, when ironically, the medieval form of science, natural philosophy, was primarily the domain of the Church.
Science belongs to everyone. Even a primary school student can do good science with the right guidance.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!