No, The Pope Has Not Got An Advanced Chemistry Degree – Not That It Matters Anyway

hs diplomaNo the Pope doesn’t have a Masters degree in Chemistry.

I only mention it because the usual suspects have been making such a big deal of Pope Francis’s scientific credentials, as part of their inevitable campaign to persuade us that his controversial encyclical on “climate change” is rooted in deep wisdom and knowledge.

When, for example, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested on the radio earlier this month that the pope should leave science to the scientists, the greenie-lefties couldn’t contain their glee.

“But the Pope is a scientist, he is, he is”, chorussed Mother Jones, MSNBC, Think Progress and others.

Indeed, for a period, the Pope’s science qualifications underwent massive grade inflation. The meme spread – possibly originating in this Catholic Herald article when he was still the all-but-unknown Cardinal Bergoglio – that the Pope actually had a Master’s degree in Chemistry.

Which he doesn’t. What the Pope in fact has is the equivalent of a something one notch above a high school diploma:

What he did do was graduate with a título in chemistry from the Escuela Técnica Industrial No. 12, which is a state-run technical secondary school.

In the Argentine system, “the título (same word used for a secondary diploma or a university degree) was earned at about age 19 after an extended secondary program,” Liebscher said. “Not everyone who goes to secondary school gets one of those diplomas, and the título really represents something beyond our high-school diploma, something akin a certificate from a community college in the U.S.”

Does it really matter either way? Not in my view, no. On the contrary, it seems all too depressingly symptomatic of the fatuous “credentialism” with which the left is so obsessed and which goes such a long way to explaining how the great global warming scam became such a dominant part of our culture.

You only have to look at the way organisations like the BBC, The Guardian and The New York Times now deploy the word “scientists”: with the kind of reverence which only a few centuries earlier might have been reserved for the pronouncements of the Pope himself.

“Scientists say…” they begin their reports on the latest health/global warming scare. And just because it’s “scientists” saying this we’re expected to take it on trust that it must be true.

Well, not wishing to rain on anybody’s parade, but I ought to point out that every single one of the shysters pumping out hysterical, corrupt, often heavily doctored, alarmist drivel at institutions like the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and NASA and the British Antarctic Survey and the National Academy of Sciences and Penn State University and NOAA and CSIRO also happens to be a “scientist”, most of them educated to levels way beyond that of the Pontiff.

Doesn’t seem to have made much difference to the quality of their expertise, though, does it?

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (12)

  • Avatar

    Kruger

    |

    I find it very strange that the author ridicules the idea of having credentials when discussing climate science. It is as if he is advocating ignorance as a pre-requisite for talking about a very complex issue and that if you take the time and effort to become a scientist, your views are no longer trusted.

    In any case, the Pope is not trying to make a scientific case but a moral case on how man should take care of the only planet we have.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The Pope is supposed to advocate for the poor, not the planet, and he failed at his number one task.

      Imagine if we put all the resources wasted on the Climate Change Industry into curing diseases and feeding people who struggle to survive day to day right now.

      [i]About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often.

      Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.[/i]

      http://www.poverty.com/

      That works out to 7,665,000 every year.

      Climate change should be at the bottom of the list of priorities

      [i]Before we come to class and Range the Sciences, ’tis proper we should sift the merits of Knowledge, or clear it of the Disgrace brought upon it by Ignorance, wether disguised as (1.) [b]the Zeal of the Divines[/b], (2.)[b] the Arrogance of Politicians[/b], or (3.) [b]the Errors of [u]Men of Letters[/u][/b].[/i]
      -Sir Francis Bacon, “Advancement of Learning”, 1605 (Father of the Scientific Method)

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Kruger

        |

        Gator, that number of 7 million deaths due to starvation is the same as the number of deaths attributed to air pollution according to WHO. And I understand that deaths from water pollution is even higher and particularly for the poor.
        I do not see how you can separate out care for the planet from care for the people living on it.
        And I don’t agree with Owen, climate science is a vibrant conversation all across the world with many voices and now it will be even more so, especially in the Catholic countries (many of them poor), now that the Pope has called his flock to more vigilant in the care of our Mother Earth.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          The Pope should be called out for endorsing the lie of global warming. Pollution is another story.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Those pollution death counts are modeled, and not empirical like the starvation deaths.

          Why is it that some people cannot discern between fantasy and reality?

          The air and water today are cleaner than 100 years ago.

          Try again.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Kruger

            |

            Modeled how? You quoted the UN as did I. Even if the deaths were exaggerated, it is still a very significant number and it affects his flock. And JayPee, air pollution usually comes from the same sources as does climate change.
            I do not see how you can separate out care for the planet from the people who depend on it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Typical. Another tool spouting numbers without checking his sources.

            [i]Methods
            Estimation of disease burden
            The percentage of the population exposed to PM2.5 was provided by country and by increment
            of 1 µg/m3
            ; relative risks were calculated for each PM2.5 increment, based on the integrated
            exposure-response functions (IER). The counterfactual concentration was selected to be
            between 5.8 and 8.8 µg/m3
            , as described in (2) and (5). The country population attributable
            fractions for ALRI, COPD, LC, stroke and IHD were calculated using the following formula:
            (1)
            where i is the level of PM2.5 in µg/m3
            , and Pi is the percentage of the population exposed to
            that level of air pollution. [/i]

            http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/AAP_BoD_results_March2014.pdf?ua=1

            That, Kruger, is a model.

            And on top of that, much of that claim has to do with the poor being forced to use wood and animal dung to heat and cook, because climate alarmists will not allow them to have access to cheap energy like coal. The Pope is now endorsing this lunacy.

            You are arguing my side of the street without knowing it, because you are a know nothing. Still want to condemn millions to death each year, just like the Pope is doing?

            I suggest you watch the video and get your head out of your arse.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I agree with everything you’re saying Gator.

            I don’t think Kruger should be allowed to confuse the issue.

            Which is a typical leftist lying tactic.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Absolutely it is. They use the term “carbon” when referring to an odorless and colorless gas, and then give models the same consideration as reality. Out where I live, the EPA has no pollution to complain about, so now they want to regulate dust, claiming it is killing people. Only problem is, life expectancy is on the rise. They are FOS.

            Besides, Kruger was even dishonest about the number of [b]estimated[/b] deaths…

            [i]The study, which has been published today, 12 July, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, estimates that around 470,000 people die each year because of human-caused increases in ozone.

            It also estimates that around 2.1 million deaths are caused each year by human-caused increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – tiny particles suspended in the air that can penetrate deep into the lungs, causing cancer and other respiratory disease.[/i]

            http://www.iop.org/news/13/jul/page_60518.html

            It’s just like the models they use to claim loss of species. When pressed for a list of the species that have gone extinct in the past decades, suddenly the models collapse.

            Turtles all the way down.

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          And in addition, the fact that you continue to argue means that, (1) you did not watch the Lomborg video, (2) you did not [i]understand[/i] the Lomborg video, or (3) you are evil.

          The money we spend on a non-issue, climate change, is enough to save millions. Even [i]if[/i] the modeled “pollution deaths” were correct, starvation trumps them as people starve long before they succumb to pollution. Get your priorities straight and stop saying provably stupid shit.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Owen Morgan

      |

      The author is not ridiculing the concept of credentials [i]per se[/i], but questioning their value in the context of “climate science”. Since climate alarmism is decidedly a closed shop, in which degrees (and especially higher degrees [no pun intended]) just don’t get awarded to those who disagree with the orthodoxy, credentials (deriving from the Latin [i]credo[/i], meaning “I trust”, or “I believe”) are rather unpersuasive, especially when the quality of “science” on display is so woeful.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Since all of the proposed “solutions” to climate change are essentially Marxist social and economic reforms, where is the science?

    Climate change, as openly admitted by a growing list of climate change movement leaders, is NOT about science, but rather about such things as “social justice” and redistribution of wealth. Climate change itself is but a facade for this Marxist movement.

    If the pope should be bound by anything it should be the principle of truth. If truth is what he seeks to profess he should not hide behind the [b]facade[/b] of climate change, but rather explain how Jesus would endorse Marxism.

    Of course, he knows that Jesus never promoted Marxism [i]or[/i] the idea that we should turn to [i]governments[/i] for forced equalization of wealth distribution or collectivist restrictions of personal liberty. Using climate change as a surrogate rationale for a political cause is simply disgraceful.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.