Well, once upon a time there was a very solid scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and those that disagreed were simply stupid "blind watchers of the sky".

And don't forget, the Catholic church is just an entirely different organization structurally than any others on the list.

1) It's universal - a flight of social fancy in NYC may be sufficient to alter the direction of a University or an award; you need to change the entire world to change the church.

2)It's hierarchical - where Peter is, so is the church. It's got an anchor.

3) That anchor is selected by the college of cardinals. And to be the constituency that selects the pope, to be "enfranchised," you have to a) dedicate your entire life to the church with vows of chastity and obedience, b) be selected by the existing hierarchy probably a couple decades ago to be made a bishop, and then c) be selected by the pope to be elevated from bishop to Cardinal. And then you're just one vote among a couple hundred others who have similarly dedicated their entire lives to the church, from across the world.

Such an organization changes but slowly...

But even so, I know many people who would place the Catholic Church up in the 2nd or 3rd spot on that list and point to Vatican II as proof...

But even so, I know many people who would place the Catholic Church up in the 2nd or 3rd spot on that list and point to Vatican II as proof...

I know what they are saying, and why. But I don't think I agree. I tend to agree with Weigel that the constant media portrayal of the Church as divided between liberal reformers and turn-back-the-clock conservatives is entirely misleading. Rather, there are 3 flavors of Catholics.

The Trads and Lefebvrist types (buncha damn Jansenists, should have known better) on the way right, the Vatican II reformers who morphed into "open to the world" leftoids on the left, and the OTHER STREAM of Vatican II reformers, who follow the actual documents of the Council, and try to remain in continuity with all that has gone before. that is, JP-II, B-16 and all those who are loyal to them...

And that's where the life and growth of the Church is. The false prominence given by the media to the others should not deceive us into thinking they represent anything truly important, through they cause a lot of damage.

(And my guess is that most of the post-Vatican II deconstruction was going to happen anyway, as the Church collided with the 60's.)

Regarding your tri-partite division of opinion on Vatican II - it took me two years in the seminary to understand what you've figured out - that one can be fully and wholeheartedly in line with the traditions of the church and be fully and wholeheartedly in line with Vatican II...amazing how hard a lesson that was to learn, despite believing that the Holy Spirit guided the council and the popes and (most of) the bishops in implementing it. I'll just blame it on "Gift of Finest Wheat" and "Glory & Praise Vol. I - III" - before Vatican II, no Haugen/Hass; after Vatican II, Haugen/Hass...it's hard to see the Holy Spirit in that...

Anyway, regarding the inevitability of post-60's deconstruction, I think one of the frustrating things about the last forty years has been that it's appeared that those tradition-bashers have been doing their deconstructing with the sanction of the church. Sure, everyone rejects the beer-and-pizza masses, but growing up in the 70's, I heard more Greek (from "Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison") than I did Latin; our organ was a frickin' Hammond B3 with a Leslie cabinet; we had PSR, not CCD, Jesus was your buddy, not your Lord and God, and it was our communal meal, not the holy sacrifice of the mass...

And all that seemed to be sanctioned by holy see...why do we sing these lame songs? Well, because the church used to be crusty and moldy, but John XXIII threw open the windows and let in the beauty of guitars and tunes that go nowhere!

I guess I'm trying to say that, had Vatican II happened, say, today, or in 1920, that maybe the 60's wouldn't have been so destructive...I wonder...

John L. Allen gave a fascinating lecture at our church, and one of his points was that Vatican II came at a time when it seemed like the Church didn't have to worry too much about outside enemies, with Fascism defeated and after the Cuban Missile Crisis had shown that Communism could be lived with. It could look inward and do some tinkering...

9/11 was a wake-up, and now the Church is getting back to reality, and getting more serious about all sorts of things.

So I have little doubt that if V-II had been at a different time things would have been better. But maybe it wouldn't have happened at all!

I actually like a lot of the modern music, but then I'm a post-Vatican II Catholic.

Plus it makes a big difference when you've got good musicians in the choir. Believe me, I've seen both good and bad now, and I've now been exposed to Carey Landry. "Rain Down" and "Don't Be Worried" are abominations. *shudder*

On the science fiction front, perhaps he ought to be exposed to Baen books. Jim Baen may well have been leftist liberal (I honestly have no idea) but he never let his politics get in the way of publishing a good story. John Ringo's big bombastic intergalactic war sci-fi springs to mind as not leftist.

For that matter, Tor (uponn which Baen also left his mark) publishes L.E. Modesitt, who could be equally hated by right and left, because his protagonists are always faced with extremely difficult choices that lead to all manner of mayhem and death. He worked with the Environmental Protection Agency for some time, but he doesn't seem to have the idea that the world is doomed; rather, his fiction has hopelessly complex quasi-ecological systems that are both extremely delicate (in that, say, creating monster storms out of nowhere will change the weather) and robust (because they achieve a different stabilization.)

In other words, both sides can hate him because he doesn't let the problems be simple. And his heroes usually end up killing large numbers of people in order to avoid worse bloodshed. It's an interesting perspective.

Further on the science fiction front:

Consider the work of Dave Weber, also for Baen Books.

His heroine Honor Harrington shares her initials with Horatio Hornblower, and this is not an accident. She is skilled at coup de vitesse - a variant of judo or karate - and at swordplay, an expert pistol shot, and a first-rate commander of everything from a single light cruiser to the battle fleet that decided the biggest fight in her world's history to date.

You might consider that a female who is expert in so many forms of combat would be a fem-lib leftist sort of character. The titles of the more recent books in the series argue otherwise. Her star nation pushed the bad guys to the edge of total defeat, and then the prime minister was assassinated and a left-liberal government took power and let the bad guys off the hook. The title of that book is Ashes of Victory. Soon the fighting resumed, in a War of Honor.

If you take this up, begin at the beginning. The first book is called On Basilisk Station.

The "Honor Harrington" series is a good one, but I'm also a fan of Forester's "Horatio Hornblower" series as well. It's almost painful to watch how in some ways Weber's books mirror Forester's, right down to how the People's Republic of Haven is revolutionary France: "Rob S. Pierre" as the leader of the PRH?? Ouch, ouch, ooch, eech (wince, grimace). Stop beating us over the head with the similarities already yet, Mr. Weber! We get it, we get it!

Now, to continue waiting for the latest volumes to appear in paperback.....

In your post, you make a passing reference to ".. the bogosity of the global warming "scientific consensus," which is actually a leftist consensus that many scientists do not agree with."

The reading I've been doing on global warming (in particular Elizabeth Kolbert's book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe), has led me to the conclusion that there is a scientific consensus about the reality and, indeed urgency, of the problem. While there is considerable debate about the details (some of which are quite important), there is, as far as I know, no longer any reasonable debate about the fundamental relationship between carbon dioxide and rising global temperatures, or the anthropogenic contribution to it.

And some people are taking it very, very seriously. For instance, consider the Netherlands, some 25% of which lies below sea level. The Dutch government is already planning to abandon some of the lower-lying polders, as their experts expect about a two-foot rise in the North Sea by the end of this century (not to mention the ongoing increase in the volume of rivers such as the Rhine, which dumps water into the country from the other side).

And I'm at a loss to explain the letter Daffyd references from a number of scientists claiming that "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future." The earliest climate model (since superseded by more accurate ones), predicted the melting of the Arctic that is now being observed. Some scientists believe that by 2080, ice in the Arctic will be entirely seasonal—no more ice cap.

Even more telling is the retroactive accuracy of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate modeling system (called ModelE), which currently comprises about 125,000 lines of code—a single run of the model takes a month on the Goddard supercomputer. When scientists tested the model against the Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991 (which dumped 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, producing a cooling effect from the increased albedo caused by aerosol droplets), the GISS model reproduced the actual effect within 9/100s of a degree. That seems to me to be a pretty accurate model!

But I'm certainly willing to consider countervailing evidence. What are your sources for your judgment that the global warming scientific consensus is “bogus?” Can you point me to a good book or series of articles that lay out the opposing view?

The term "global warming" in the above example has a dual usage. It refers to both the idea that the Earth is getting warmer— which would not be surprising, given the fact that Mars and Jupiter appear to be getting warmer too— and the idea that global warming is both undesireable and man-made.

I think it's the latter trope that is under dispute. We honestly don't have enough information for what is a very chaotic system to fully understand the effects that human activity has on it, and whether it is a very large lever or a very small one.

And as for the former, the world may be getting warmer. But we don't know where the mean is truly supposed to be— the dinosaurs had it much warmer all around, and in more recent times, the Vikings settled Greenland during a warm period. Where they grew grapes. And then the Little Ice Age hit and they pulled back their settlements.

So where are we supposed to be? Heck if I know. Is it even supposed to stay that way for long periods of time?

Global Warming is much like certain other current events. If you read Newsweek, you get one story. If you poke around the Dextrosphere reading blogs, you frequently encounter bits of evidence that tell another story. (PLUS many reports of the suppression of evidence that doesn't support the politically correct conclusions, and stories of attacks on the careers of dissenters.)

Here's an example of what I'm referring to. A post on the Wegman Committee's report on the famous "Hockey Stick" model of recent global climate change...

A quote: "...We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis...." Here's some more on that particular issue.

Things like this do not prove that global warming theories are wrong. And I'm certainly no expert, and I'm expressing skepticism, not advancing my own theory.

What really bothers me is that it is very obvious that there is a lot more going on than just "disinterested science." Millions of people have seized on this topic with one idea: "Now WE get to run the circus. Now WE get to rein in America, and capitalism, and growth, and all this CHANGE that makes us frightened and threatens our sureties."

For an interesting author, you might look at: Official webpage for Bjorn Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg was actually threatened with prison in Denmark for publishing "scientific falsehoods," even though all he has done is to collect scientific articles that don't fit the official model.

The very term "consensus" is meaningless in this context. Something either exists or it doesn't regardless of how many people concur. Anyone who ignores or attempts to suppress contradicting evidence has stopped being a scientist, and the folks at the British Royal Society should know that.

Scientifically speaking, consensus is not very useful. But I think the context here is not science but the messy business of translating science into policy. In that area, discerning a consensus is usually necessary, because if the scientific jury had come to a clear conclusion then there would not be a "question" to be argued over.

Trouble is, the "consensus" is being mooted mostly within the academic environment, where extreme and stifling political conformity is the norm. Where taking non-leftist positions can lead to loss of friends, respect, even a career...

And this problem is magnified greatly because the driving force behind leftism is no longer the dream of revolutionary change, but fear of change.

Yes, a consensus is meaningful when it comes to translating scientific knowledge into public policy. (But no scientist worth his or her salt is going to act to protect the consensus against new data.)

I do not see the context here as the translation from knowledge to policy. These "scientists" are trying to control the knowledge itself. Is global warming primarily caused by industrialization or by increased solar output? Regardless of which hypothesis one believes a scientist should welcome any data that sheds light on that question.

Maybe it just reveals my naiveté but I am pretty shocked that the British Royal Society would actively suppress dissent…a truly depressing sign of the times.

It's certainly shocking. But this is a era of transformation. It is transformational in various ways, one of which is that we are moving from the Industrial Age to the Information Age.

I suspect what we are seeing is the shaking and crumbling of marmoreal institutions reacting to tremblers far below. We don't quite see why, we don't notice the quakes. This is similar to the way probably no one at the time connected the disintegration of the ancien regime or the fall of Louis XVI with the doings of inventors and entrepreneurs in places like Manchester or Glasgow....

Thanks for the references. I'll follow them up; but is that all you have in support of your comment? It seems to me you're doing again what you did in your comments about “Jesus scholarship:” “writing [your] impressions, rather than what [you] know for sure” (your own words). What you said about global warming seemed to me much stronger than merely “expressing skepticism;” it had the flavor of a final judgment.

Be that as it may, are you aware that the Wegman report also states that "There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record that temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a fact." and "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change?" (p. 66) And that more recent research shows clear evidence of the anthropogenic nature of the problem?

Mike, you say that "Maybe it just reveals my naiveté but I am pretty shocked that the British Royal Society would actively suppress dissent..." Seems to me there's a big difference between dissent and astroturf. And that's what at least some of the Exxon-funded research appears to be. Cui bono is a very powerful heuristic—on both sides of the debate. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of non-disinterested science on both sides. My judgment, however, is that most of it is on part of the anti-global-warming advocates, who are very, very frightened by the changes that will likely be required to fight this threat.

Which is why, John, this comment of yours makes me laugh:

"Now WE get to run the circus. Now WE get to rein in America, and capitalism, and growth, and all this CHANGE that makes us frightened and threatens our sureties." [ed. emph.]

That appears to me to be a wonderful example of projection. And the post we're talking about, with its long list of institutions that have changed in ways that make you afraid, is to me a classic example of the usefulness of Teilhard's famous question in trying to understand the American right: "What would we do without our enemies?" I mean, you're even willing to divide the body of Christ in your search for the Other, as witnessed by your comments about the Roman church. You might want to think about Tolkien's comment about the fissiparous nature of evil, keeping in mind that I do not mean that the Right is evil, but that the search for the Other that characterizes so much right-wing thought these days most definitely is. “God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.”

Oh, and finally, some comments on a field where I do possess some expert knowledge: science fiction. I'm not surprised that Dafydd singles out “science fiction publishing” as one of the victims of “the Left's gradual and insidious takeover,” since, in his opinion, SF has never given his obvious brilliance the recognition it deserves. (When I told Deborah that you were quoting Dafydd approvingly, she broke into delighted laughter—the kind of laughter that so infuriated Screwtape.)

But I have to say that if Dafydd is right, it's the best thing that ever happened to SF. I'd much rather read the intelligent, nuanced, and often mind-blowing fiction of Stross and MacLeod than the pedestrian, predictable prose of Weber and Ringo. (I admit to taking some pleasure in the Honor Harrington series, despite the shallowness of the characters and the simplistic nature of his space battles. He's a decent storyteller, even if his Sayersian trinity is rather scalene.) Ringo, on the other hand, is a hack, a mere purveyor of badly-written war porn, and if that's what the right wing stands for in SF, then I say the hell with it!)

Dave,

A lot of scientific research gets funded by groups that may have an agenda. It is not the Royal Society's place to determine the intentions of every scientist producing research. It is the quality of the science that matters. I'll get back to that, but you say most of the "non-disinterested science" is being done by the anti-global warming crowd. I say the opposite is true. Granted this is anectodal evidence, but check out this quote from Tim Worth, President of the UN Foundation (the organization founded by Ted Turner with a $1 billion gift):

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Or this one by Stephen H. Schneider, Stanford University professor, and Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Institute for International Studies:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Do you really think those sentiments are uncommon among many people and institutions funding research into global warming? I strongly doubt that the Royal Society has sounded any alarms regarding the research being funded by people with these views.

But getting back to the science itself, the research being funded by Exxon does not take place in a vacuum. If it is quality science then the researchers will lay out their methodologies, assumptions, statistical techniques, etc. - everything that other scientists would need to be able to reproduce their work. If the work can't be reproduced or if the techniques or assumptions are demonstrably faulty, then that will be exposed by other scientists, and the work will not be taken seriously. It is irrelevant who produces the research, it is the quality of the science that matters and poor science is easily exposed by experts.

You can spin it any way you want, but if the Royal Society is squashing research before it even gets done they have stopped being scientists and have simply become advocates.

", you're even willing to divide the body of Christ in your search for the Other, as witnessed by your comments about the Roman church..." First thought: I've been given a mighty reproof from a Doctor of the Church, or advanced spiritual master---that's how they would write.

Second thought: Pompous BS. This is just more posturing. Acting AS IF, for the space of one blog comment, one had some coherent set of deeply-held beliefs. Beliefs which, somehow, never actually manifest themselves. Never are spelled-out, never are defended with logic, never spread out for criticism and debate. And next time you comment, it will AS IF you are standing on some different firm rock. (Same with the Global Warming comments. They are faux-profound, but we will wait in vain for specific political commitments, policy positions, plans, plus the economic theory that under-girds them.)

3. Why the heck shouldn't I comment on the divisions and different thought-streams in the Church? They are something I deal with or think about every day.

4. This blog is not, as I've said before, "Weidner's Guide For The Perplexed." It's a virtual conversation, where I can toss out any idea that comes to mind, and see how my friends bat it around. (And while I don't defend each impulsive thought with an array of beliefs, my beliefs have been displayed on the blog over the years. So anyone can catch me out if I am inconsistent or illogical.) Why do I do this? Why do I keep blogging, for almost 5 years now, while others burn out? Because I do not (with the exception of my very dear wife) have a single friend I can open my heart to, or just say any crazy thing to.

So feel free all to comment and criticize. As do I, in this "Little O," this little virtual coffee house. I can't deal right now with all the other points, I've got a monstrous busy day today (including replacing a garbage disposal, that just died with much attendant wetness.).

(By the way, my thoughts on the Church are something I've never given the slightest peep of in the parish. They are only on the blog.)