Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sps49 said:
Since science does not understand the difference in effects between AGW and natural variation, the statement “going to be locked into the effects of global warming and climate change” carries little if any weight.
Click to expand...
We know that greenhouse gases cause the suns heat to stay in our atmosphere causing the warming of our planet. If some of the gases are due to an increase in humans breathing, it does not mean that the unnaturally occurring gases emitted by our lifestyles don’t play a factor as well. It means they add to the naturally occurring CO2 gases adding to the problem of global warming. So doing nothing where we could do something is not an option if we care about our future and those who are suffering the effects of climate changes already.

It’s simple science. Our weather is affected largely by the oceans. Think of a warm pool, even if the air becomes suddenly cool, the water doesn’t suddenly become cool because water will hold heat longer than air… The oceans affect our climate and the oceans take longer to warm and cool. So if we cause our oceans to warm up, and we have, even if we stop emitting our greenhouse gases, it will take a lot longer time for the oceans to cool down, even if the atmosphere cools. So the longer we don’t act, the warmer the ocean gets and the longer it will take to see a response so we will be ‘locked in’ to the change… Its not as if we can flip a switch on a wall to cause our world to change back into a more livable habitat.
 
estesbob said:
He hasn’t:

13) Does the pope say things that are critical of the standard secular environmentalism that is popular in the media?
Yes. Among other things, he rejects approaches that:
  • Treat mankind as if it is fundamentally harmful to the environment
  • Fail to take into account human needs, especially those of the poor
  • Blame the world’s environmental problems on population growth
  • Seek to justify abortion on environmental grounds
Click to expand...
Hi bob,

It is true that the pope is critical of standard secular environmentalism. But he does advocate, along with the IPCC, drastic cuts in human CO2 emissions and hence fossil fuel productions and consumption. He’s not specific by what means this should be accomplished, but he surely believes in the Global Warming of Doom hypothesis, and he thinks we should act to mitigate.
 
Karen107 said:
We know that greenhouse gases cause the suns heat to stay in our atmosphere causing the warming of our planet. If some of the gases are due to an increase in humans breathing, it does not mean that the unnaturally occurring gases emitted by our lifestyles don’t play a factor as well. It means they add to the naturally occurring CO2 gases adding to the problem of global warming. So doing nothing where we could do something is not an option if we care about our future and those who are suffering the effects of climate changes already.

It’s simple science. Our weather is affected largely by the oceans. Think of a warm pool, even if the air becomes suddenly cool, the water doesn’t suddenly become cool because water will hold heat longer than air… The oceans affect our climate and the oceans take longer to warm and cool. So if we cause our oceans to warm up, and we have, even if we stop emitting our greenhouse gases, it will take a lot longer time for the oceans to cool down, even if the atmosphere cools. So the longer we don’t act, the warmer the ocean gets and the longer it will take to see a response so we will be ‘locked in’ to the change… Its not as if we can flip a switch on a wall to cause our world to change back into a more livable habitat.
Click to expand...
If you consider that there is no clean attribution analysis, then the rest of the catastrophic claims collapse back upon themselves. Simple science says you; multiple nonlinear systems that we don’t know well coupled together in ways that we don’t understand. Yes, I suppose if you did not know the properties of what you speak of you could see it that way. Unfortunately for your argument, it is not that simple.
 
estesbob said:
He hasn’t:

13) Does the pope say things that are critical of the standard secular environmentalism that is popular in the media?
Yes. Among other things, he rejects approaches that:
  • Treat mankind as if it is fundamentally harmful to the environment
  • Fail to take into account human needs, especially those of the poor
  • Blame the world’s environmental problems on population growth
  • Seek to justify abortion on environmental grounds
Click to expand...
Where’s this stuff coming from?
 
sps49 said:
If you consider that there is no clean attribution analysis, then the rest of the catastrophic claims collapse back upon themselves. Simple science says you; multiple nonlinear systems that we don’t know well coupled together in ways that we don’t understand. Yes, I suppose if you did not know the properties of what you speak of you could see it that way. Unfortunately for your argument, it is not that simple.
Click to expand...
The scientific methods to study climate change are not simple, I’ll leave that to the experts in the field, but the understanding of the science of climate change is simple.
 
I’ll refer to a post on page one.
Beryllos said:
Yes.

Uh-oh, here we go again… As a scientist who understands the basic physics behind it, I would have to say it’s a sure thing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is to say it absorbs and emits infrared light in a way that tends to warm the planet’s surface. That’s just physics. Sensible people can argue over how much heat the CO2 keeps in, or other factors like the greenhouse effect of water vapor, cooling and warming due to cloud coverage, CO2 emissions of volcanoes, solar output variation, effects of other industrial emissions like soot, methane, etc., but I don’t think anyone has come up with a scientific argument that our massive CO2 emissions are going to make the planet any cooler. And so what if there are other factors that we do not fully understand or have control over? That is a poor argument for inaction with respect to the factors that we do understand and have control over.
Click to expand...
 
Karen107 said:
Where’s this stuff coming from?
Click to expand...
His encyclical. have you read it?

8) Many in the media have been talking about what the encyclical has to say on global warming. How prominent a theme is this?

While global warming is one of the themes in the document, it would be a mistake to think of this as a “global-warming encyclical.” The document goes into much more than that.
As the list of topics covered in chapter one indicates (see previous question), global warming or “climate change” is just part of the first of five major sections dealing with ecological problems that the pontiff sees.
Of the 40,500 words in the official English translation of the document, the word warming occurs nine times and the phrase climate change occurs twelve times.
It would be a mistake to portray the document as having nothing to say about global warming, but it would also be a mistake to focus on this one issue to the exclusion of the many others that the document discusses.
However, because the subject has received so much publicity and generated so many questions, we will look further at it.

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis%E2%80%99s-environmental-encyclical-13-things-to-know-and-share
 
Karen107 said:
That sounds more like a political rhetoric rather than anything scientific. THAT’s the problem. Politics clouding the minds of the AGW deniers.
Click to expand...
So pointing out the wild predictions that never came true is Politics? Mann Claimed Lower Manhattan would be under water now, Shouldn’t that give us pause when listening to any other predictions he makes?
 
Karen107 said:
The scientific methods to study climate change are not simple, I’ll leave that to the experts in the field, but the understanding of the science of climate change is simple.
Click to expand...
Science much? What I listed were not methods, but phenomena. The phenomena are complex, as well as analysis.
 
estesbob said:
His encyclical. have you read it?

8) Many in the media have been talking about what the encyclical has to say on global warming. How prominent a theme is this?

While global warming is one of the themes in the document, it would be a mistake to think of this as a “global-warming encyclical.” The document goes into much more than that.
As the list of topics covered in chapter one indicates (see previous question), global warming or “climate change” is just part of the first of five major sections dealing with ecological problems that the pontiff sees.
Of the 40,500 words in the official English translation of the document, the word warming occurs nine times and the phrase climate change occurs twelve times.
It would be a mistake to portray the document as having nothing to say about global warming, but it would also be a mistake to focus on this one issue to the exclusion of the many others that the document discusses.
However, because the subject has received so much publicity and generated so many questions, we will look further at it.

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis%E2%80%99s-environmental-encyclical-13-things-to-know-and-share
Click to expand...
His encyclical is online… Why do you refer to a blog that doesn’t speak about what your saying? Show me where in the encyclical it says the things you are sharing.

why speak in third and fourth person?
 
Karen107 said:
His encyclical is online… Why do you refer to a blog that doesn’t speak about what your saying? Show me where in the encyclical it says the things you are sharing.

why speak in third and fourth person?
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akins is a well respected catholic Apologist. The idea that he is lying about the encyclical is specious. If you had read the encyclical you would know what he said is true.
 
estesbob said:
Jimmy Akins is a well respected catholic Apologist. The idea that he is lying about the encyclical is specious. If you had read the encyclical you would know what he said is true.
Click to expand...
And ?? What was wrong with what the Pope said that you two are making a big tadoo about?
 
Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”.28 To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues
Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is un comfortable and creates difficulties? "
 
estesbob said:
Jimmy Akins is a well respected catholic Apologist. The idea that he is lying about the encyclical is specious. If you had read the encyclical you would know what he said is true.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, what you quoted was an analysis by Jimmy Akins, not a quote from the encyclical itself. So it is not correct to say, in response to Karen, that this stuff is coming from the encylical itself. No one is accusing Jimmy Akins of lying. He may simple be mistaken. But if the support of what you say is to be found in the encyclical itself, why not quote the encyclical itself?
 
Karen107 said:
And ?? What was wrong with what the Pope said that you two are making a big tadoo about?
Click to expand...
I don’t think we are making a big tadoo about what the Pope said-we are pointing out what he actually said as opposed to what the AGW proponents claim he said. As Mr. Akins points out AGW was a minor part of his encyclical but the Left would have us believe he has proclaimed that any Catholic who doesn’t believe in AGW is doomed to eternal hellfire.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Nevertheless, what you quoted was an analysis by Jimmy Akins, not a quote from the encyclical itself. So it is not correct to say, in response to Karen, that this stuff is coming from the encylical itself. No one is accusing Jimmy Akins of lying. He may simple be mistaken. But if the support of what you say is to be found in the encyclical itself, why not quote the encyclical itself?
Click to expand...
I just did. Now show me in the encyclical where the Pope says a catholic is bound to accept AGW?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top