Pope Francis To Issue Encyclical On Global Warming 341
HughPickens.com writes The Guardian reports that following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, Pope Francis plans to publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds. "A papal encyclical is rare," says Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, chancellor of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences who revealed the pope's plans when he delivered Cafod's annual Pope Paul VI lecture. "It is among the highest levels of a pope's authority. It will be 50 to 60 pages long; it's a big deal." The encyclical will be sent to the world's 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners. Within Catholicism in recent times, an encyclical is generally used for significant issues, and is second in importance only to the highest ranking document now issued by popes, an Apostolic Constitution. "Just as humanity confronted revolutionary change in the 19th century at the time of industrialization, today we have changed the natural environment so much," says Sorondo. "If current trends continue, the century will witness unprecedented climate change and destruction of the ecosystem with tragic consequences."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles, particularly in the US – where Catholic climate sceptics also include John Boehner, Republican leader of the House of Representatives and Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate. "There will always be 5-10% of people who will take offence. They are very vocal and have political clout," says Dan Misleh, director of the Catholic climate covenant. "This encyclical will threaten some people and bring joy to others. The arguments are around economics and science rather than morality." Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, says Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be "un-biblical" and a false religion. "The pope should back off," says Beisner. "The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US."
Doesn't matter (Score:2, Funny)
He's not a climate scientist and his paper isn't peer reviewed.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not a climate scientist and his paper isn't peer reviewed.
What happens when he agrees with peer reviewed climate scientists?
Does your head asplode?
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like AC is, right?
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution?
What I particularly liked about your post is the large number of sources you included to support the above statement.
Re: (Score:3)
letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty
There are plenty of reasons why coal sucks beside CO2 emissions. Even if CO2 is a total non-issue coal is poor choice of power source given today's options, which is why you don't see any new coal plants being built in the US and even China has decided to move away from them going forward.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is "because lots of the power we have available now is produced by burning coal, we shouldn't try to produce power in the future by doing something else"?
I mean, of course the wind turbines get produced by burning coal - that's so that future wind turbines will be produced by drawing electricity from a grid powered by wind turbines (and tidal power stations, and hydro plants, and solar plants, and nuclear, and ...)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
Sure they can - generating heat is always roughly 100% efficient, so as long as the wind turbines are generating the same amount of energy as the coal that would otherwise be burned for heat, you're good to go.
For the immediate future though, yes, any sort of metalwork is probably going to be fueled by fossil fuels, simply because they are cheap, and 2-3x as efficient when producing heat is the *goal* rather than an intermediate step. Using electricity to generate heat is phenomenally wasteful unless 100% of the total electricity is produced sustainably - in a rational world heating applications should be the *last* thing converted away from fossil fuels (nuclear could also be a viable option, but not until someone starts building nuclear reactors designed to operate at iron-smelting temperatures). Until we reach that point it makes far more sense to use the electricity for things that need non-thermal energy, and fossil fuels for things that need heat.
That in no way detracts from the benefit of deploying renewable energy sources - without such deployment that same "dirty energy" would instead be invested in producing more "dirty energy" generating facilities - demand is constantly increasing, and old generating facilities are constantly being updated or replaced.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Coal is used to refine raw iron ore into iron or steel because the ore consists to a huge percentage of OXYGEN! ... which is mainly done with electricity.
So you need coal to reduce the iron ore to iron, and for that you basically can only use coal: not gas nor oil.
However the majority of steel production is recycling of existing steel
Re: (Score:3)
Is it? Doesn't matter what you burn, it's still going to suck oxygen out of everything around it to produce CO2. The big difference between coal and hydrocarbons is that hydrocarbons have lots of hydrogen in addition to the carbon bonds, but hydrogen likewise bonds with oxygen, so you actually consume a lot *more* oxygen per pound of oil than per pound of coal (or per Watt I believe). Of course for metallurgical work producing massive amounts of water vapor could be an issue... In fact I suppose you woul
Re: (Score:2)
NREL disagrees with you on solar [nrel.gov]. The payback period is anywhere from 1-4 years with current technology.
As for wind turbines, often the payback period is even shorter. [ourenergypolicy.org]
Birds haven't been a huge problem except for Altamont Pass which is a major bird migratory area. The new larger turbines are also much less of a hazard for birds.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
A modern wind turbine in typical European conditions generates enough energy to "repay" the costs of building and installing it in about six months. http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Backup can mostly be other renewable sources (solar, hydro, biomass) demand management and storage (pumped water at the moment). For the rare but real occasions when none of this covers the need, cheap gas turbines designed for a low duty cycles seem like the best option.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
>. Coal is one of the most dense and cheapest forms of energy on the planet, so it involves much less harm to the environment
Well, except for the fact that it's the #1 source of radioactive pollution, hideously toxic and unregulated under grandfathered environmental exemptions, and the undisputed #1 source of CO2 per watt: which at current rates of usage increase will almost certainly rapidly alter planetary temperatures to something resembling the Cambrian Period in only a few centuries, devastating virtually all existing ecosystems in the process.
I agree invoking "biomass" is not a magic bullet - but done intelligently you can efficiently convert farm waste, etc. to energy, and even optionally produce biochar (at a loss of energy) - an extremely old and ecologically beneficial form of carbon sequestration.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously there is, hence the name carbon cycle. Plants use solar energy and CO2 to produce biomass, and pretty much everything else then oxidizes that biomass for energy, releasing the original amount of CO2 in the process. A nice closed loop that keeps recycling the same carbon over and over again.
The problem is that when we burn fossil fuels we're releasing *geologic* carbon from the rock - carbon that mostly hasn't been part of the ecological carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years - and there's not really any natural process to return that carbon to the rock at anything remotely like the rate at which we're releasing it* - which means the total amount of carbon in the ecosystem is increasing. And since carbon isn't the limiting factor on the amount of biomass on the planet, that pretty much means that the atmosphere and oceans have to absorb all that extra CO2 - there's nowhere else for it to go.
* You may ask, so then how did all that fossil fuel build up in the first place? The answer is varied, but for coal there was a period of ~60 million years (the Carboniferous Period, 359-299mya) during which plants had evolved cellulose to give them rigidity, but nothing had yet evolved a way to digest it. So you have 60 million years of the carbon rich cell-walls of plants building up and compacting instead of rotting away and being recycled - add another 300 million years of slow chemical and biological degradation underground and coal is what's left.
As it happened that process dramatically reversed a slow but implacable greenhouse effect caused by the gradual decay of carbon-bearing rocks - the same basic process that made Venus what it is today. Without those 60 million years worth of rapid global carbon sequestration it is questionable whether complex life would still be able to survive on this planet. You'll excuse me for not wanting to find out what happens if we bring it all back.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, "scientific evidence" doesn't show whether or not something is or is not "pollution". "Pollution" is a term of judgement.
The science shows that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can change the climate. There are not "PLENTY" of scientists who disagree with that.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
It's not even a matter of whether a particular substance is a "pollutant" or "toxic". Many necessary substances can be harmful if present in high concentrations. You can die just by drinking too much water [scientificamerican.com]. That doesn't mean that water's a pollutant, even though too much can kill you. The argument that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because plants need it is similarly confused -- too much of a good thing can be harmful.
To get to the heart of the matter, the EPA considers any harmful emission to be a pollutant [skepticalscience.com], even if the substance emitted is necessary for life.
Re: (Score:2)
citations please.
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. You really think so?
"environmental radicalism"?! (Score:2, Informative)
Acknowledging the scientific consensus is "environmental radicalism" now? Let's face it, the deniers are the ones engaging in radicalism.
Environmental radicalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently listening to the world's scientists and acknowledging reality is now a "radical position".
Pretending that all is well with the climate, and that our only problem is that our entire scientific community is delusional, OTOH -- that's the reasonable and moderate position.
Re: Environmental radicalism? (Score:2)
It's like the catholic church position on evolution. I was raised in a catholic and priests-run school, and I was taught evolution as a fact. 20+ years ago. It's only in the US (and maybe some radical muslim countries) that the schools teach some mumbo jumbo about the human race being created with a magic wand or something.
Denying commonly accepted, scientifically proven positions makes you appear purposefully ignorant or just retarded.
Re:Environmental radicalism? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is too many stupid idiots who want to remain as stupid as fucking possible, but then think their ignorant, full of shit opinion means something. Go out and be as stupid as you want to be... but don't expect anyone to think anything more of you than that you're a fucking idiot.
Re:Environmental radicalism? (Score:5, Informative)
scientists ... who get a large portion of their income from oil companies
Any doubters should google about Clair Patterson, and failed attempts to bribe him to keep the public in the dark about environmental lead. He saved IQ points for all of us.
The times, they are a'changin' (Score:5, Insightful)
As an atheist, I have to say that I respect this Pope for trying to drag the church, with many kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
And not just the church - look what he did to help the US and Cuba. A year ago that wasn't even on the radar.
I wonder what else he has up his sleeve.
Re: (Score:3)
The Church was OK with science last century ... (Score:4, Informative)
As an atheist, I have to say that I respect this Pope for trying to drag the church, with many kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
Actually you are off by a century (maybe more). In the 1920s a Catholic priest at a Catholic university proposed the currently accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe, the big bang. In the 1960s (or earlier ?) the Catholic church accepted the biological evolution of life including man. The church stated last century that the language of Genesis is figurative not literal. It also stated last century that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith.
If you want to look at earlier centuries much early research was done by members of the clergy, ex genetics. And various bishops were key in establishing the modern western tradition of the scientific method in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what else he has up his sleeve.
Sadly, it doesn't include treating women like humans. He still believes they're inferior. I don't take him seriously on the subject of the poor, either; the vatican is still sitting on too much wealth. But seeing the pope agree with current science is a refreshing breath of fresh air. The vatican must surely have investments in companies whose management are not glad to hear this lot from the pope.
Re:The times, they are a'changin' (Score:4, Insightful)
As an atheist, no one who cares about the Pope's opinion gives a shit about yours.
Speak for yourself. As an atheist, I do care about any help we can get to combat the growing ignorance. I much rather have a religious community who's believes align with scientific findings than one which goes against it for whatever reason.
Cornwall Alliance? (Score:5, Informative)
I know of them! I've been annoyed reading of them before. It's a conservative organisation that is defined as the exact opposite of the environmental movement. It is their belief that natural resources were created by God, for Man - and thus it is not only mankind's right to exploit them, but a divine duty to do so. They also reject the possibility of climate change on the grounds that God wouldn't create a world so fragile that humans could break it*, and regard the free market as the solution to pretty much everything. Their approach is that no-one would willingly damage land they personally own, so if all land is in private hands then it will be safe from environmental destruction.
Their main rhetorical device is to frame things as helping the poor. For example, on climate change, they'll point out that emisions reductions have a considerable economic cost, especially in developing countries - cheap energy is the great driver of economic growth and advancement. Therefore emissions reductions efforts frustrate the growth that would otherwise lift people and whole countries out of poverty. Throw in a picture of some starving children in Africa, and it turns into a story about how stupid liberals are killing children by denying them access to the wealth of oil and industrial agriculture. It's effective because it's arguably true to some extent - and it would be a perfectly valid argument, if they weren't ruling out any possibility of climate change causing far worse problems on grounds, not of scientific reasoning, but of theology: God wouldn't let that happen.
*According to their own website: "As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Although Earth and its subsystems, including the climate system, are susceptible to some damage by ignorant or malicious human action, God’s wise design and faithful sustaining make these natural systems more likely—as confirmed by widespread scientific observation—to respond in ways that suppress and correct that damage than magnify it catastrophically."
Extreme climate event: Hell freezes over (Score:4, Insightful)
Never thought I would see the day when the head of the the Catholic church represents a beacon of scientific rationalism dragging the rest of the first world into the modern era.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Extreme climate event: Hell freezes over (Score:4, Informative)
Never thought I would see the day when the head of the the Catholic church represents a beacon of scientific rationalism dragging the rest of the first world into the modern era.
Well, for most of the past 1000 years, the Catholic Church has been a leading force in scientific advancements of knowledge -- numerous scientific discoveries and theories came from priests, monks, and other church affiliates, and the church played a major role in the dissemination of knowledge. It's really only in the past 150 years or so that the church's role in science has significantly decreased. For every Galileo affair (which, though inexcusable, was more about politics and freedom of speech than scientific progress), there are dozens of other examples of significant scientists or ideas coming from Catholic sources.
(Full disclosure: I'm not a Catholic, but I have done significant research on the history of science. Want more info? Start here [wikipedia.org].)
Obviously there are issues where the Catholic Church seems "backward," but -- in contrast with many other conservative religious groups -- it has embraced things like evolution, the Big Bang theory was actually first proposed by a Belgian priest, etc. So while this may be a great announcement from the Pope, it isn't really a significant change from most Catholic roles in science. The idea that somehow the Catholic Church is opposed to science was created by radical revisionist historians in the 19th century. But it's not really accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
What you consider 'many' is for others just a drop in the ocean.
Really? A list like this [wikipedia.org] is just a "drop in the ocean"? And that's just Catholic clerics who made scientific contributions; it doesn't include other non-ordained folks supported by the church over the centuries. People who founded entire new major ideas in science (Copernicus, Mendel, Mersenne, Roger Bacon, etc., if you include non-clerics [wikipedia.org], people like Lavoisier, Descartes, Pasteur, etc.) are just a "drop in the ocean"?
During the times you mention the 'scientific' disciveries of the catholic church is dwarfed by islamic, indian and chineese research and discoveries ...
The "times [I] mention" were the past 1000 years. It's true that European scientific
Re:Extreme climate event: Hell freezes over (Score:4, Insightful)
Corrected that for you. Except for a few lunatics, no one seriously disputes AGW outside the US.
Slashdot's refusal to accept climate change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You see the same thing whenever feminism comes up. Another reliable way to bring out the morons is anything like "Hey, guys, rape is bad and people who do it are bad people."
Re: (Score:3)
QED
Re: (Score:2)
You see the same thing whenever feminism comes up. Another reliable way to bring out the morons is anything like "Hey, guys, rape is bad and people who do it are bad people."
If you equate rape with the few marginal forms of gender discrimination that still exist, you are part of the problem.
QED
OMG! HAHA! That's some funny shit right there. That's why I keep coming here, exchanges like that.
Re:Slashdot's refusal to accept climate change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, it's a tech site, not a science site. Techies are usually logically-minded and rationalist but they're also raging dilettantes who assume that they can run any dataset they want through a shell script and make better sense of it than the so-called "experts." They are quick to yell "conspiracy!" and suspicious of anyone with advanced qualifications.
Techies of the Internet age are also steeped in libertarian ideological and moral values and disdain any sort of consensus or political process, let alone any conversation about morality or values.
These are people that think they can download any movie or TV show and nobody deserves to be paid for it; these are people that trade PGP keys so they can email each other about their lunch order in perfect secrecy; these are people that assume they know more than their boss because they know how to unblock port 20 on his laptop. How do you think such people will react if you tell them that driving their car is slowly destroying the planet, and a massive regulatory and social revolution is necessary to stop it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's like how engineers, of all the STEM fields, are the most likely to be young-earth creationists.
Re:Slashdot's refusal to accept climate change... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the "Dr." titles that appear on anti-evolution petitions are MDs, the general phenomenon is called the Salem Hypothesis [rationalwiki.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the smarter posters left a long time ago, a result of increasing radicalization in the userbase here. It's a self-sustaining cycle, because the more they derp, the more the rational people leave, and only stronger derp remains.
So we're left with the most spergy elements of nerddom, people who got lucky because they were raised in white middle class households who could afford to buy computers when the computer revolution was taking off. They make an extremely good living with relatively no training,
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone has to look out for the Christians of the world.
Hint: Jesus was against Pharisees and Money Lenders. If you think he said for you to get rich and destroy the world, you're reading the wrong bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Jesus was against Pharisees
Do you know why he was against them? Hint: it wasn't because of money. He didn't hate rich people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure who it is supposed to be.
I can tell you don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because they were the precursors of modern rabbis. Compared to the very conservative and aristocratic sadducees, who tended to take torah literally, pharisees often originally were working class people who have become who they were due to their intelligence and determinations. They were much more flexible in torah interpretation and difficult to argue with.
This is why the bible has such a bitter "take that" against them - it was far too difficult to argue with them in person so the authors had to res
Re: (Score:2)
No, he hated what money did to the 99.9 percent of rich people. It's called corruption.
Corruption is the natural state of man. Christ came as much to save you as he did to save rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're adamantly against this translation version, for whatever reason, it translates similarly in all the other standard versions.
What?? I only accept the original Greek. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is an acceptable substitute in a pinch.
Allegiance to a foreign power? (Score:2)
So if any US politicians change their tune about global warming because of what the Pope said, does this mean they are allied to a foreign power? Isn't it important to start booting people out of office that would do that?
Re:Allegiance to a foreign power? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a US politician advocates for Israel does this mean they are allied to a foreign power? If a US politician takes campaign contributions from a multi-national corporation does that mean they are violating the foreign immoluments clause of the US Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if Israel ordered them to take that position. It's not likely that American citizens have sworn allegiance to Israel.
But if you've ever been married in a Catholic church, you do swear allegiance to the pope.
If a US politician takes campaign contributions from a multi-national corporation does that mean they are violating the foreign immoluments clause of the US Constitution?
Obviously yes.
They will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re: (Score:2)
If a US politician advocates for Israel does this mean they are allied to a foreign power?
Yes.
If a US politician takes campaign contributions from a multi-national corporation does that mean they are violating the foreign immoluments clause of the US Constitution?
Yes.
not by the hair on my feathered dinosaurs chin. (Score:2)
what's wrong with this picture (Score:5, Insightful)
I remain mystified by how such a sane and decent person has risen so high within a large institution.
Re: (Score:2)
Dawn, don't get your hopes up, he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. so he can't run for presidency.
However, it's a nice phantasy, than really change would happen.
Global Change? Bring it on! (Score:2)
Does not represent a change in views of the Church (Score:4, Insightful)
I was raised Catholic but no longer consider myself one. I still have a fascination for the Church's history and how it functions. I also share some of its values. To those that consider it an ultra-conservative organization, that's only partially true. It often isn't, at least not in the US political sense of the word "conservative". It's also a very large organization that exists within many countries and cultures. Though there is only one set of beliefs and teachings, the emphasis placed on those different teachings varies from place to place. For example, many Catholics in the US practice birth control even though the official teaching of the Church is that it's a sin (aside from "Natural Family Planning"). Few US priests (at least in my part of the country) are going to attempt to lecture their congregations on it.
So even though the Pope has put more teeth behind the Church's official stance on global warming, that doesn't mean that Catholic climate change skeptics are going to suddenly tow the party line. It will hopefully mean that the larger organization will make funds available to its churches to make them "greener" but I doubt it. Money tends to flow only in one direction within the Church.
Radical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Francis's environmental radicalism is likely to attract resistance from Vatican conservatives and in rightwing church circles...
Isn't it strange that accepting what for all practical purposes must be called the scientific consensus is described as 'radical'? And stop calling deniers 'conservative' - a conservative is somebody who, after giving the matter some thought, feels that the old ways are best - whereas the deniers are people that refuse to apply their intellect at all, if there is a risk they might have to change their minds. I have a lot of respect for conservatives; rather less for deniers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This Pope is the best one we've had in MANY years! He seems genuinely concerned for the average person, and seems to apply the standards Jesus used, which is precisely what a pope should do!
May God bless him!
And may people who stubbornly believe it's OK to screw up the environment be sent to a very warm place, where there won't be any climate change, ever.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
You hypocrites are always making fun of religion, and calling catholics pedophiles and faggots.
That's bullshit and you know it ...
We would never call catholics 'faggots'.
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Informative)
You liked the Popes that hushed up rampant pedophilia and hobnobbing with the powerful and rich?
What ever floats your ark.
Re: (Score:3)
You liked the Popes that hushed up rampant pedophilia and hobnobbing with the powerful and rich?
Sorry, but it sounds like Pope Francis has published a list of all the child molesters they know they've relocated. Can you drop a link, please?
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha, haha, hahahaha.
Well this atheist wishes you both irrelevance, though if he's going to be relevant I'd prefer his brand.
On a side note why is it whenever I read posts like the above, when I click on them, I can be absolutely certain the poster is none other than Mr AC.
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Informative)
"his ridiculus support for evolution"
Um, every pope for eighty years has supported evolution. The catholic church has been officially supportive of evolution since the 1950 encyclical.
Re:Agreed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiot. Pope Frank doesn't represent you. He represent GOD. You think Catholicism is a democracy?
Re:Agreed. (Score:4, Interesting)
He represent[s] GOD.
I'm not so sure - he often sounds like a compassionate atheist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny thing about atheism - it matters not one whit to compassion. That the Pope's position should should overlap says good things about Pope - too long has Catholicism pandered to kings while neglecting the common people it claims to shepherd.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The pope is nothing compared to liberals. Liberals have ALL the answers to life's problems. They also have a cohesive set of beliefs and standards that will create a perfect society if only the unwashed would listen to them, and follow their tenants religiously. In this sense Liberals ARE GOD, and are much much more important that some faggy as pedo called the pope. Don't believe me, just ask a liberal. She or he will tell you that in fact she is Perfect, and then wage a sin tax on you for being white.
All must bow to the magnificence of liberal thought.
I christen thee Stupidest Post of 2014
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Informative)
While I admire many of Francis actions, he was not the first Pope to respect evolution. That honor goes to Pius XII, which is surprising considering most Popes named Pius were complete bastards who should not have been allowed to live much less given any authority. The Vatican accepts both "God made Man with magic" and "God used evolution to create Man" as valid possibilities. They do not say it was evolution, just that God can use whatever tool he damn well pleases because he's God for fucks sake.
Good job on being more conservative than the Vatican of half a century ago. It takes a lot of brain-damage to accomplish that feat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Agreed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you heard of this guy Paul who wrote most of the new testament? He said: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."" (Galatians 5:14)
Some of your neighbors are gay. Paul ordered you to treat *all* your neighbors with love, and so did Jesus. Pope Francis is just following orders. If the Bible is your authority on truth, you should too.
Conservative Christians/Catholics grossly misunderstand their Biblical history. Compared to the conservative Jewish tradition of his day, Jesus was a FLAMING liberal. Eating with sinners and tax collectors! Breaking the law when it doesn't make sense! Forgiving sinners that were caught red-handed! These are part of why everyone was so pissed off at him: he was too liberal.
Conservative Christianity has been infected by hatred, judgmentalism, self-righteous pride, and disgusting selfishness. And you, Mr AC, are a fine example of exactly this.
You seriously need to have a heart-to-heart with your God before it is too late.
Re: (Score:2)
And here you have it folks, straight from the front lines of Slashdot. Millions of dollars and countless hours spent on the subject and the answer is only three lines long. mfearby, I salute you!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The temperature has NOT risen since 1998. Fact.
That "fact" hasn't been true for years. Cherry picking 1998 worked for a while, because it was an unusual year, but not keeping up and picking a new cherry makes you look stupid. 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1998 and if you bother to look a the data, you'll see the upward trend is clear.
Climate change might be a non-issue, but ignoring the facts doesn't help make that decision. Is there a reason you want to stick to a false fact so hard? A lot of conservatives seem to think the only solution to
Re: The Pope's doubling-down on irrelevance, I see (Score:3)
The only "data" I see on that site is carefully cherry-picked to suit the domain name. There's no original data, no broad surveys, no methodology for his conclusions, certainly no peer review, and his claims are all easily falsified by looking for oneself at the rest of the data.
The only reason anyone would trust a site like that to think for them is to carefully avoid contact with genuine studies, in case they contradicted your belief system.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, that old it-hasn't-warmed-since-1998 argument. Here you go:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
(I would have made the link actually link, but /. really ought to catch up and do that automatic as well as have a red envelope to see replies in the meantime. Hell, it doesn't even work on iOS devices when not logged in, can't changed what comment levels to see, it was better 15 years ago. What an antiquated site. My new year's resolution is to dump it for r/science and r/te
Re:The Pope's doubling-down on irrelevance, I see (Score:4, Informative)
Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.
Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.
Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.
The link from above [skepticalscience.com] is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.
Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.
Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven [wikipedia.org] at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".
It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.
If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.
The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?
That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding CO2 the earth is a closed system.
Except for solar radiation the earth is a closed system!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Pope's doubling-down on irrelevance, I see (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The temperature has not risen in the past decade or so
Which means absolutely nothing for the trend. When the yearly statistical noise is about equal to a decade's worth of trend, you'll find that the decade long "pauses" are nothing special. This graph should enlighten you: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Note that it has the raw data in red, and two trend lines. One calculated over 1970-2000 and the other from 1970 to current. As you can see, the two trend lines are in complete agreement.
Re:Good news! We did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
-1 Downvote for quoting the Daily Mail on anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The leader of one very large religion joining forces with the very large religion of MMGW.
All MMGW religion is "settled science" with no need for the denying heretics to be heard
Facts be damned! - we "believe" in MMGW!
Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief implies taking something on faith, even in the absence of facts. The facts supporting the theory of MMGW are quite clear. Reason, not faith, dictates that this theory be given greater weight that those being put forth by those who benefit from ignoring the problem. I suspect that the Pope's message will be that, as the Xtian god has charged humanity with being stewards of their world, a carefully reasoned course of action is called for.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way you can believe a claim to be factual without using belief and faith.
There is always a chain of trust - a belief that your senses are accurately showing you reality; that scientific observations were documented properly; or that scientific models built off of those observations reflect reality; or even a belief that there is an objective reality at all!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between rationally discussing the solution to a problem and ignoring the existence of a problem. Both result in a solution, one by abdicating the ability to affect the outcome.
The sooner the world starts having serious political and social debates about what (if anything) should be done we'll be better off. Until then we're stuck with a lot of finger in ear lalalalalalalalalalalalalala'ing the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
it seems the only cure offered is to either severely restrict our lifestyles or increase the costs of everything so that it has that same effect
That is standard denialist fearmongering and propaganda, this thinking that the only cure is lots of sacrifice. It's not true. It's the opposite. It will employ an awful lot of people to do much of the work we can do to address Climate Change. That's a lot of jobs.
Lots of those things will also make our personal lives better. In general, it's called efficiency. Now flat screens are in nearly every way better than CRTs. Refrigerators became much more efficient in 1996.
People should get over their
Two Fucking Paragraphs of Explanation (Score:2, Informative)
Absolutely. When you don't like the solution, it means the problem wasn't real anyway.
The facts involved in global warming are actually easily verified. You can do so in your basement if you like. All you need to do is to prove that CO2 absorbs IR energy of a certain spectrum. Then you will be able to calculate the temperature change for a doubling of CO2, as a straightforward result of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You can even test that if you like, with the same equipment. Coming up with a good estimate of g
Re:How perfectly appropriate - (Score:4, Informative)
Are you a practicing climate scientist who has personally checked all those facts? Not many people who would agree with you are. But they are looking at something written down that they- perhaps even you can never check or verify other then asking someone else if it is correct. But it's your version, it's real and factual, just like the faith Jews or Christians, or Muslims have.
Bullshit. First, there are degrees of wrong. [tufts.edu] Plus, you know, science works [xkcd.com].
I am actually a published, practicing scientist. I can do the basic smell test on the papers, if not understand the tiny details.
To come to the conclusion that "the concensus is probably right and that in any case, I have no compelling reson to doubt the conclusions" the only "faith" I need to have is to discount the preposterous notion that the world's climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to defraud us all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I *believe* you have that backwards. The evidence supports MMGW, you *believe* that to be a myth. If you have any facts by all means share them. I suspect what you have are some number of people whose specialty is not climatology saying they don't believe in MMGW.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you read the bible? He just speaks things into existence and alters things with his will alone. No magic wand needed. Jesus sometimes had to touch people.
On the other hand, have you ever thought that global warming is the will of God and the hypothetical wand waving has already happened?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of Christ's life was closer communism than to capitalism. Remember the loaves and fishes story? He didn't charge people for food. He didn't charge people to listen to him speak, he didn't charge people to cure them. Blessed are the poor of this world, for they shall inherit the kingdom of God...gee, Francis must be a communist!
We are supposed to share with our fellow man, not have the rich trickle down money to them.
We also aren't supposed to kill others, but turn the other cheek...but that doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Catholics usually care.
Re:Call his boss (Score:4, Interesting)
Adam & Eve - the executive version:
His boss, kicked "us" out of the executive lounge - where we had free finger food and funny games* all day - and there was nothing else to do, than to praise him and follow his rules - not to eat the apple from the special tree (tree of awareness).
We voilated his only rule and became aware due to eating the apple from the tree of awareness.
God realized that now at least four entities (god, adam, eve, satan a.k.a Snake Plisken) with awareness existed.
And so he said when people are aware of theirselves they don't need a caring god, they can live on their own with *any help* from daddy.
This is why HE/God/His boss can't/won't fix it. Because our sin is awareness so mankind is fully responsible for it's own actions
And as we are responsible for our actions, we should try to act accordingly.
And not hope, that the CO2 content conserved over hundreds of millions of years excavated and reintroduced into the atmosphere over a term of ~150yrs. will have really no effect on the climate.
*(adam & eve games)
*(in the start at some point in time god went arsonist on some olive trees)
Re:As someone brought up in a Catholic family... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've already heard from some preposterous stuff from deep-green environmentalists (aka back to the wonderful Stone Age world of peace with Mother Earth) that AGW is a moral imperative, and sure enough, religious people are trying to join as well.
Straw man. The Pope and the mainstream environmental movements are not arguing for that, so using it to criticise him is not a valid argument.
I am old enough to mistrust any politician or religionist who talks about anything as a "moral imperative" because it usually implies mob justice and the crushing of civil liberties. Look at the history of the World. Look at ISIS right now whose highest priority is the moral imperative of submission to Islam. Tell me I'm wrong.
Wow, you really like these straw men, huh. When I think of moral imperatives, I think of things like equal rights for black people and the end of slavery, equality for homosexuals, not polluting the world or hunting species into extinction, that sort of thing. ISIS isn't really representative of the Pope's views or what he means by "moral imperative", so I'm happy to say you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Communism in some form is the future, denying it is to deny what you can see evolving before you. I'm not saying Marxism is what it will be, but capitalism is on the way out and it only takes a little research on the subject to see that. Really if you are a somewhat decent nerd you would know this too.