Damian Thompson recites, perhaps with just a little relish, how the vicar of an Anglo-Catholic church has been threatened with violence, should his parish convert to the Catholic Church. St Saviour's, Walthamstow, is a Forward in Faith parish, which does not accept women priests, and Fr David is seriously considering the Pope's offer of a new home. Fr David Waller also found the noticeboard of St Saviour's daubed with 'CofE No Pope'.Mouse despairs that morons of this order exist. However, it seems they do so we have to figure out how to respond. From the report it sounds like the threat of violence was a drunken answerphone message, and it is highly likely that the graffiti was done by the same idiots. Surely the only worthy response it not to take this incident seriously, as Thompson and others have, but to put it down to childish stupidity.
The broader issue is that we should treat the whole issue of whether to leave the Anglican Church to join the Catholic Church not as some kind of land grab by the Pope, not as some kind of power-play and not as a bitter falling apart of the church. We should look at it, as Rowan Williams has tried to lead us, as simply a way for people to find a place to worship in the way they feel called to do.
Iain Dale has brought to a slightly wider audience the story doing the rounds on some blogs about leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (known as the CRU emails). It is not entirely clear whether these emails have been leaked or hacked, but the result has been a bit of a storm either way.
The central accusation is that these emails reveal that scientific evidence central to the climate change consensus has either been faked, or that it is weak and has been presented as fact when there are holes in the data. Devil's Kitchen gives the emails a pretty thorough exam.
This couldn't come at a more important time, as increasing numbers of world leaders agree to attend in person for the UN Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen. It is hoped that world leaders will reach an agreement at Copenhagen as a successor to the Kyoto protocol which will, in effect, become a solution to climate change. The stakes are enormous.
Mouse's view is that these emails prove nothing. They are so complex that only a handful of scientists could actually attempt to explain them. And they have already done so, by publishing papers setting out their views on climate change. The discussion around these emails that they are a smoking gun remind Mouse of moon landing conspiracy theories which have numerous 'smoking guns'. They point to flaws in the photos from the moon, which are simply the misunderstandings of amateur scientists, for example.
Just like moon landing conspiracy theories, for climate change science to be bogus would require scientific fraud on a gargantuan scale. If it were all bogus, these hacked emails would not be the only available evidence. It is simply not conceivable that it is all a great big conspiracy, not least because there is absolutely no-one who benefits from this. The climate change sceptics argue that the scientific community benefits from increased funding. All Mouse can say is what absolute rot. They would be much better paid if they worked for polluting companies who pay their scientists well to produce contrary evidence.
So, Mouse's view is that we don't take guff about these emails any more seriously than we take those loonies who think the US government organised 9/11.
On the other hand, the looming catastrophe which will destroy the lives of millions of people, according to the consensus view of the scientific community and almost all governments world-wide, really should be taken seriously.
Mouse argued some time ago that a single common platform would be the best way to apply pressure on world leaders to reach a credible deal in Copenhagen. It now seems that The Wave is becoming that focal point, so please check it out. Mouse will blog on The Wave a little nearer the time.
The central accusation is that these emails reveal that scientific evidence central to the climate change consensus has either been faked, or that it is weak and has been presented as fact when there are holes in the data. Devil's Kitchen gives the emails a pretty thorough exam.
This couldn't come at a more important time, as increasing numbers of world leaders agree to attend in person for the UN Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen. It is hoped that world leaders will reach an agreement at Copenhagen as a successor to the Kyoto protocol which will, in effect, become a solution to climate change. The stakes are enormous.
Mouse's view is that these emails prove nothing. They are so complex that only a handful of scientists could actually attempt to explain them. And they have already done so, by publishing papers setting out their views on climate change. The discussion around these emails that they are a smoking gun remind Mouse of moon landing conspiracy theories which have numerous 'smoking guns'. They point to flaws in the photos from the moon, which are simply the misunderstandings of amateur scientists, for example.
Just like moon landing conspiracy theories, for climate change science to be bogus would require scientific fraud on a gargantuan scale. If it were all bogus, these hacked emails would not be the only available evidence. It is simply not conceivable that it is all a great big conspiracy, not least because there is absolutely no-one who benefits from this. The climate change sceptics argue that the scientific community benefits from increased funding. All Mouse can say is what absolute rot. They would be much better paid if they worked for polluting companies who pay their scientists well to produce contrary evidence.
So, Mouse's view is that we don't take guff about these emails any more seriously than we take those loonies who think the US government organised 9/11.
On the other hand, the looming catastrophe which will destroy the lives of millions of people, according to the consensus view of the scientific community and almost all governments world-wide, really should be taken seriously.
Mouse argued some time ago that a single common platform would be the best way to apply pressure on world leaders to reach a credible deal in Copenhagen. It now seems that The Wave is becoming that focal point, so please check it out. Mouse will blog on The Wave a little nearer the time.
Those of you who do not follow football may just need a word of explanation on this one before Mouse gets going. Last week Ireland were playing France in a play-off to decide which of the teams would go to the next world cup. The match was all square when, deep into extra time, Thierry Henry handled the ball to control it and set up the winning goal.
Naturally there was pretty universal outrage.
Henry immediately admitted that he handled the ball, but did not quite seem to go as far as to admit that he actually did anything wrong. His defence seems to have been that although he did not handle the ball, it is up to the referee to decide whether to blow the whistle or not, and so it is not cheating if he continues playing on. His reaction when asked whether he considered stopping and telling the referee that he handled the ball was, 'You're very funny'.
Mouse will leave it up to you to decide whether you think Henry should have stopped and explained to the referee that he handled the ball, or whether he is justified in celebrating France's victory with a clear conscience.
For Mouse's part, he's rather sad that Henry's approach seems to be the dominant approach in the world today. Matt Dawson, a world cup winner with England's rugby team, said that Henry had done “what any professional sportsperson would have done in his position”. Mouse's view is that the morality that says 'winning is everything' and accepts whatever you can get away with to get whatever you want is ultimately very destructive.
Naturally there was pretty universal outrage.
Henry immediately admitted that he handled the ball, but did not quite seem to go as far as to admit that he actually did anything wrong. His defence seems to have been that although he did not handle the ball, it is up to the referee to decide whether to blow the whistle or not, and so it is not cheating if he continues playing on. His reaction when asked whether he considered stopping and telling the referee that he handled the ball was, 'You're very funny'.
Mouse will leave it up to you to decide whether you think Henry should have stopped and explained to the referee that he handled the ball, or whether he is justified in celebrating France's victory with a clear conscience.
For Mouse's part, he's rather sad that Henry's approach seems to be the dominant approach in the world today. Matt Dawson, a world cup winner with England's rugby team, said that Henry had done “what any professional sportsperson would have done in his position”. Mouse's view is that the morality that says 'winning is everything' and accepts whatever you can get away with to get whatever you want is ultimately very destructive.
The Church Mouse's Notes
Oh dear - morons threaten vicar if his parish goes to RomeNov 24, 2009
Copenhagen and climate change conspiracy theoriesNov 23, 2009
Thierry Henry and the ethics of our timesNov 23, 2009
Should we have an affordable Christmas or a generous one?Nov 21, 2009
You know the Archbishop of Canterbury has played a blinder when ...Nov 21, 2009
Parents of 'Humanist Billboard' children are PentecostalsNov 20, 2009
Friday round upNov 20, 2009
Update on the blog police storyNov 19, 2009
After the atheist bus its now the humanist billboardNov 19, 2009
Serbian Orthodox Patriarch to be chosen by lotteryNov 18, 2009