Draft of Environmental Encyclical Leaked: 12 Things to Know and Share [Akin]

[Black_Knight_MI]

I for one choose to wait for the release on Thursday…read it for myself, and not waste my time with the excerpts as reported by some self serving Italian journalist.

As for CC & GW, my personal experience has already shown that our weather has changed and become more extreme.

Although we haven’t had any hurricanes in Florida lately.
We have had more and more serious tornadoes all over the country.

And…the summers are hotter and the winters have been colder.

I have yet to see any of this so called “data” refuting any of this. So far all I have seen is a lot of deniers without any “date”.

Link me to it if it’s out there, but it had better be good because my own experience says they’re wrong, and it also strikes me as funny that even the governor of the state of Florida actually doing his best to keep anyone from even talking about it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Did Jimmy Akin actually contribute in this thread?

 

[dmar198]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Did Jimmy Akin actually contribute in this thread?

No. What happened was, I wrote the OP, then a separate thread was created by a bot (named “Catholic Opinion”) tHat regularly posts copies of things Jimmy has written on his blog. A moderator merged the two threads, creating the Appearance that Jimmy has posted something here himself. But he hasn’t.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Genesis315]

idk. I thought these were authoritative statements from the church. It is…it isn’t.

This is how St. Francis de Sales put it in Catholic Controversy:
St. Francis de Sales:

And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion.

Whether or not the climate is changing in harmful ways due to the activity of man is a question of human fact.

NOTE: this post does not indicate that i think it is an error–I honestly don’t know enough about it, but I bet a lot of the naysayers would be supporters and vice versa if this issue were arbitrarily assigned to the Republicans rather than arbitrarily assigned to the Democrats:shrug:

 

[billcu1]

This is how St. Francis de Sales put it in Catholic Controversy:

Whether or not the climate is changing in harmful ways due to the activity of man is a question of human fact.

NOTE: this post does not indicate that i think it is an error–I honestly don’t know enough about it, but I bet a lot of the naysayers would be supporters and vice versa if this issue were arbitrarily assigned to the Republicans rather than arbitrarily assigned to the Democrats:shrug:

I have read from some that CO2 levels have doubled and that hasn’t happened in 20,000,000 years. If that is so. So what. We are entering a couple of new astronomical phases. Into the sagitarian arm of the galaxy. Many forces are at work. It maybe time for CO2 level to jump a lot right now. Why is it ascribed to human beings that this is happening?

 

[expectthebest]

I for one choose to wait for the release on Thursday…read it for myself, and not waste my time with the excerpts as reported by some self serving Italian journalist.

As for CC & GW, my personal experience has already shown that our weather has changed and become more extreme.

Although we haven’t had any hurricanes in Florida lately.
We have had more and more serious tornadoes all over the country.

And…the summers are hotter and the winters have been colder.

I have yet to see any of this so called “data” refuting any of this. So far all I have seen is a lot of deniers without any “date”.

Link me to it if it’s out there, but it had better be good because my own experience says they’re wrong, and it also strikes me as funny that even the governor of the state of Florida actually doing his best to keep anyone from even talking about it.

I began to post a bunch of data but then decided to just implore you to research the subject and read the unadjusted real data and see what it tells you. As for anecdotal observations, the climate on earth has continuously changes throughout the millennia, mostly before man even existed. It has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now. All without man.

 

[Hans_W]

I have read from some that CO2 levels have doubled and that hasn’t happened in 20,000,000 years. If that is so. So what. We are entering a couple of new astronomical phases. Into the sagitarian arm of the galaxy. Many forces are at work. It maybe time for CO2 level to jump a lot right now. Why is it ascribed to human beings that this is happening?

Yes, my daily tea-leave reading also showed some strange pattern recently. Something is going on.

 

[billcu1]

Just use your logic. Do you really think the pope would put his name on a document which has a 50% chance of proven to be false?

idk. It’s not a document of faith and morals. But it’s an encyclical. So I guess that means it’s for teaching purposes. For the lay people and the ecclesiastics. I don’t know what the “status” of the encyclical is. But some are telling me that if it’s not “faith and morals” so infallibility can’t be claimed. I think it’s pretty exciting because this is his first true encyclical. And even better this October the Synod is getting together again .So we have two treats this year.

 

[Genesis315]

idk. It’s not a document of faith and morals. But it’s an encyclical. So I guess that means it’s for teaching purposes. For the lay people and the ecclesiastics. I don’t know what the “status” of the encyclical is. But some are telling me that if it’s not “faith and morals” so infallibility can’t be claimed. I think it’s pretty exciting because this is his first true encyclical. And even better this October the Synod is getting together again .So we have two treats this year.

It certainly does deal with faith and morals, but applies them to particular facts. It deals in general with our moral duties toward creation given us by God. It then applies that doctrine to theories held by an apparently strong scientific consensus.

As an aside, Lumen Fidei was his first encyclical. This is his second.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Encyclical Letter Laudato si’ on care for our common home

Complete encyclical in English.

 

[billcu1]

It certainly does deal with faith and morals, but applies them to particular facts. It deals in general with our moral duties toward creation given us by God. It then applies that doctrine to theories held by an apparently strong scientific consensus.

As an aside, Lumen Fidei was his first encyclical. This is his second.

Oh I thought the pope emeritus had some influence on that. So it wasn’t entirely Francis’ work. That’s what I meant.

 

[Genesis315]

Oh I thought the pope emeritus had some influence on that. So it wasn’t entirely Francis’ work. That’s what I meant.

Ah, got it, well it probably wouldn’t be the first papal encyclical that work was started on during one pontificate and finished during another. In general, encyclicals can be a team effort of various theologians or prelates or ghostwritten to some extent. It’s then promulgated by the reigning Pope, making the words his own, and endowing them with his own authority, even if he didn’t sit alone in a room and write it all.

 

[dmar198]

Ah, got it, well it probably wouldn’t be the first papal encyclical that work was started on during one pontificate and finished during another. In general, encyclicals can be a team effort of various theologians or prelates or ghostwritten to some extent. It’s then promulgated by the reigning Pope, making the words his own, and endowing them with his own authority, even if he didn’t sit alone in a room and write it all.

Sometimes I wonder to what extent early papal documents were ghost written. I think there is evidence that early beaurocratic Europe, including Rome, knew the benefits of having documents ghostwritten by more skilled rhetoricians. I don’t think it’s really a modern phenomenon.

 

[lynnvinc]

Sometimes I wonder to what extent early papal documents were ghost written. I think there is evidence that early beaurocratic Europe, including Rome, knew the benefits of having documents ghostwritten by more skilled rhetoricians. I don’t think it’s really a modern phenomenon.

I think it is well known that the Pope had lots of experts help him write the encyclical and check for its scientific accuracy. However, the Pope has been concerned about climate change for a long time, such has the harms to the Amazon, well before he became Pope. He himself has scientific background and taught science and was a lab technician.

He signed it and I’m sure wrote the beautiful parts on St. Francis and the parts on the moral and ethical issues, as well as the overview of the basic science.

Actually one does not have to be a climate or environmental scientist to have written the encyclical, but someone with good lay knowledge. Everything in it jives perfectly with what I’ve been studying (as a lay person who now teaches Environmental Studies) for over 25 years and with my knowledge of the greenhouse effect that goes back to the 60s & 70s.

It’s good solid science and good solid theology and morals (based on what the former 4 popes have written – in that way it is nothing really new).

 

[expectthebest]

I think it is well known that the Pope had lots of experts help him write the encyclical and check for its scientific accuracy. However, the Pope has been concerned about climate change for a long time, such has the harms to the Amazon, well before he became Pope. He himself has scientific background and taught science and was a lab technician.

He signed it and I’m sure wrote the beautiful parts on St. Francis and the parts on the moral and ethical issues, as well as the overview of the basic science.

Actually one does not have to be a climate or environmental scientist to have written the encyclical, but someone with good lay knowledge. Everything in it jives perfectly with what I’ve been studying (as a lay person who now teaches Environmental Studies) for over 25 years and with my knowledge of the greenhouse effect that goes back to the 60s & 70s.

It’s good solid science and good solid theology and morals (based on what the former 4 popes have written – in that way it is nothing really new).

How can you say it’s good solid science? I can’t seem to find one climate model that has even come close to predicting what is really happening. Thing is, they aren’t even close. Over and over again, the climate change crowd is caught adjusting, if not right out changing data with no good explanation to meet their expectations of what it should be. Some of the leaders in this movement won’t even share their data! The “hockey stick” has been shown to be a fraud. Unfortunately, there is nothing solids about the science. I will admit, the theory to some degree makes sense. But, the data just does not prove the theory. This same crowd was warning us of global cooling in the 70’s. Then they went to global warming. When they couldn’t prove that, they changed it to “climate change”. The only thing this has to do with religion it that this kind of environmentalism based on false data is exactly that, a religion. There is faith in the theory and the “facts” are strategically put together to try and desperately support that faith. This certainly cannot be supported as science.

 

[billcu1]

How can you say it’s good solid science? I can’t seem to find one climate model that has even come close to predicting what is really happening. Thing is, they aren’t even close. Over and over again, the climate change crowd is caught adjusting, if not right out changing data with no good explanation to meet their expectations of what it should be. Some of the leaders in this movement won’t even share their data! The “hockey stick” has been shown to be a fraud. Unfortunately, there is nothing solids about the science. I will admit, the theory to some degree makes sense. But, the data just does not prove the theory.

The far left wing of the environmental groups can go overboard yes. But in 1969 when it started tmk it was with a legitimate concern with an oil spill. Those things are tragic. I have no problem being careful and recycling and things sure. But the “global warming” thing. If it is going on. I don’t know how they can blame people for it. Too many geologic ages have changed too much. IMO. I think they are reaching out to “brainwash” the youth into absurdities in some cases. And dumb people. That find thinking too hard to do. And so, need to be told what to do.

 

[lynnvinc]

How can you say it’s good solid science? I can’t seem to find one climate model that has even come close to predicting what is really happening. Thing is, they aren’t even close. Over and over again, the climate change crowd is caught adjusting, if not right out changing data with no good explanation to meet their expectations of what it should be. Some of the leaders in this movement won’t even share their data! The “hockey stick” has been shown to be a fraud. Unfortunately, there is nothing solids about the science. I will admit, the theory to some degree makes sense. But, the data just does not prove the theory. This same crowd was warning us of global cooling in the 70’s. Then they went to global warming. When they couldn’t prove that, they changed it to “climate change”. The only thing this has to do with religion it that this kind of environmentalism based on false data is exactly that, a religion. There is faith in the theory and the “facts” are strategically put together to try and desperately support that faith. This certainly cannot be supported as science.

I think you’ve been reading wrong sources. Climate science is solid and there is NO science that shows it to be wrong. Yes, people with BAs in Poli Sci criticize it and act as if they know of which they are talking. All that nonsense is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industries.

I happen to know Mike Mann and several other climate scientists – they are hard-working, brilliant and honest people. (Edited)

 

[expectthebest]

I think you’ve been reading wrong sources. Climate science is solid and there is NO science that shows it to be wrong. Yes, people with BAs in Poli Sci criticize it and act as if they know of which they are talking. All that nonsense is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industries.

I happen to know Mike Mann and several other climate scientists – they are hard-working, brilliant and honest people. (Edited)

All I can do is shake my head. There is tons of science out there that poke huge holes in the man made climate change theory. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Not the number that Mann has manipulated to show what he wants to show. Just look at the numbers. Mann would like us to believe it’s fact and not theory. This is simply not the case.

 

[billcu1]

All I can do is shake my head. There is tons of science out there that poke huge holes in the man made climate change theory. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Not the number that Mann has manipulated to show what he wants to show. Just look at the numbers. Mann would like us to believe it’s fact and not theory. This is simply not the case.

People seem to think numbers mean something. They can be high one day and low the next. Have all variables been considered? Or many left out intentionally or because they are all simply not known? What matters is that numbers show correlations, not causes. I’m not denying pollution, or even climatic change. Only questioning the idea that man is causing it in its’ entirety. Oil spills, well that’s humans.

 

[billcu1]

The edge of California will within 300 million years move up and to the left of California too. There will be different islands. That’s change. The earth is very much alive.