Merkel: Pope wants her to fight to save Paris climate deal

[JPUSC]

Merkel: Pope wants her to fight to save Paris climate deal
By The Associated Press

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

VATICAN CITY — Jun 17, 2017, 12:44 PM ET

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says Pope Francis encouraged her to work to preserve the historic Paris climate accord despite the U.S. withdrawal from it and shared her goal to “bring down walls” between countries, not build them.

Merkel and Francis met for about 40 minutes Saturday in the Apostolic Palace, focusing on the Group of 20 summit that Germany is hosting in Hamburg on July 7-8.

The Vatican said the talks centered on the need for the international community to combat poverty, hunger, terrorism and climate change.

Merkel told reporters she briefed the pope on Germany’s G-20 agenda, which she said “assumes that we are a world in which we want to work together multilaterally, a world in which we don’t want to build walls but bring down walls.”

Francis has consistently called on nations to build bridges not walls — including in reference to the border wall that the Trump administration wants to build along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Merkel said Francis encouraged her to fight for international agreements, including the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to curb heat-trapping emissions.

“We know that, regrettably, the United States is leaving this accord,” Merkel said.

As he did when President Donald Trump visited last month, Francis gave Merkel a copy of his environmental encyclical, “Praise Be,” which casts fighting climate change and caring for the environment as an urgent moral obligation.

Francis issued the encyclical ahead of the Paris climate deal in hopes of urging a global consensus on the need to change “perverse” development models that he said had enriched the wealthy at the expense of the poor and turned God’s creation into an “immense pile of filth.”

Francis appeared in unusually good cheer Saturday during the meeting, smiling broadly and laughing during both the formal portrait and the casual banter with Merkel. In contrast, Francis often looks glum during many formal state visits, including when Trump and his family visited.

abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-germany-reaffirm-paris-climate-accord-post-us-48101242

 

[peter26]

 

[twf]

The Trump supporters won’t like this. They may talk and walk like right wing Evangelicals, but as Catholics, deep down, the pope’s opinion must count for something.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Now that’s a political endorsement!

The U S has withdrawn from an accord that would seriously hobble our economy, America has probably done more to reduce it’s carbon footprint than any other nations, and will continue to do so.

We, as individuals can support the Pope on this, and do

 

[Tim_D]

It is very sad to see the pope involve himself in an issue that is at best unsettled and at worst a back-door means of transferring wealth from sovereign countries to others.

If the Paris accord impacted Vatican City like it does the United States, then I wonder if the pope would still favor it? Talk is great but when you have to cough up money, then it becomes something different.

 

[Tim_D]

The Trump supporters won’t like this.

Its got nothing to do with Trump.

Contrary to Leonardo de Caprio’s opinion, the science is not settled on climate change. In fact, there is such a wealth of scientists and data against it as to cause the sincerely honest people in the debate to doubt the dogmatic declarations of the pro-change side.

 

[twf]

Its got nothing to do with Trump.

Contrary to Leonardo de Caprio’s opinion, the science is not settled on climate change. In fact, there is such a wealth of scientists and data against it as to cause the sincerely honest people in the debate to doubt the dogmatic declarations of the pro-change side.

Are there any non-Republican, non-American PhD scientists who specialize in climate science who say its all a hoax?

 

[Tim_D]

Are there any non-Republican, non-American PhD scientists who specialize in climate science who say its all a hoax?

How should I know? But you just contributed to the problem. Scientist on the other side do not say that warming is a “hoax;” they say the notion of man’s industrial activity is insufficient to cause patterns today that have been seen over the past 2,000 years. It isn’t a question of true or false; it is a question of cause. There is ample evidence to show that we are seeing nothing more remarkable than what has happened in the past and that the idea of anthropomorphic-caused climate change lacks convincing evidence.

 

[abucs]

It is very sad to see the pope involve himself in an issue that is at best unsettled and at worst a back-door means of transferring wealth from sovereign countries to others.

Yep. The thinly veiled criticism of Trump with the walls comment from Merkel is also regrettable.and rather petty. Another black mark on her for me.

 

[twf]

How should I know? But you just contributed to the problem. Scientist on the other side do not say that warming is a “hoax;” they say the notion of man’s industrial activity is insufficient to cause patterns today that have been seen over the past 2,000 years. It isn’t a question of true or false; it is a question of cause. There is ample evidence to show that we are seeing nothing more remarkable than what has happened in the past and that the idea of anthropomorphic-caused climate change lacks convincing evidence.

I’ve seen people on this forum use the term “hoax” and speak of a leftist conspiracy to convince us all that global warming is a concern. I wasn’t sure where you stood.

 

[meltzerboy]

Merkel: Pope wants her to fight to save Paris climate deal
By The Associated Press

https://i-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.amppr...00000578-4613400-image-a-72_1497703994775.jpg

VATICAN CITY — Jun 17, 2017, 12:44 PM ET

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says Pope Francis encouraged her to work to preserve the historic Paris climate accord despite the U.S. withdrawal from it and shared her goal to “bring down walls” between countries, not build them.

Merkel and Francis met for about 40 minutes Saturday in the Apostolic Palace, focusing on the Group of 20 summit that Germany is hosting in Hamburg on July 7-8.

The Vatican said the talks centered on the need for the international community to combat poverty, hunger, terrorism and climate change.

Merkel told reporters she briefed the pope on Germany’s G-20 agenda, which she said “assumes that we are a world in which we want to work together multilaterally, a world in which we don’t want to build walls but bring down walls.”

Francis has consistently called on nations to build bridges not walls — including in reference to the border wall that the Trump administration wants to build along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Merkel said Francis encouraged her to fight for international agreements, including the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to curb heat-trapping emissions.

“We know that, regrettably, the United States is leaving this accord,” Merkel said.

As he did when President Donald Trump visited last month, Francis gave Merkel a copy of his environmental encyclical, “Praise Be,” which casts fighting climate change and caring for the environment as an urgent moral obligation.

Francis issued the encyclical ahead of the Paris climate deal in hopes of urging a global consensus on the need to change “perverse” development models that he said had enriched the wealthy at the expense of the poor and turned God’s creation into an “immense pile of filth.”

Francis appeared in unusually good cheer Saturday during the meeting, smiling broadly and laughing during both the formal portrait and the casual banter with Merkel. In contrast, Francis often looks glum during many formal state visits, including when Trump and his family visited.

abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-germany-reaffirm-paris-climate-accord-post-us-48101242

Good for both of them! They may be an odd couple but together they can perhaps keep hope alive with regard to the environment. And the vast majority of legitimate climate scientists who have expertise in this domain would agree with them. Let’s not make the climate issue into another denial of scientific theory as in the case of the theory of evolution, when we know the overwhelming majority of anthropologists support that theory as well despite its gaps. Let’s instead stand on the side of science rather than political orientation. There is no perfect scientific theory, but it’s the best we have so far. So are you all with me or against me?

 

[Tim_D]

I’ve seen people on this forum use the term “hoax” and speak of a leftist conspiracy to convince us all that global warming is a concern. I wasn’t sure where you stood.

That’s because it has been turned into a political debate instead of a question of science-based evidence. A more less-than-scientific phrase such as “a consensus has been reached, the science is settled” could not be imagined. Science is not a product of “consensus,” and the fact that the “evidence” has been tampered with gives reasonable suspicion to the motives of those who make the claim. It is doubly sad to see that Pope Francis has involved himself and the Church in something that is currently more about politics than science.

 

[Tim_D]

And the vast majority of legitimate climate scientists who have expertise in this domain would agree with them.

1. This is a meaningless statement. For every “legitimate climate scientist” in the pro column, there is also a “legitimate climate scientist” in the con column. Science isn’t determined by who gets the most votes. I direct you to the 2 unknown researchers who discovered, against the medical consensus of the day, that ulcers are caused by bacteria instead of the dogmatic idea of stress and anxiety.

Let’s instead stand on the side of science rather than political orientation. There is no perfect scientific theory, but it’s the best we have so far.

The climate change debate IS politically orientated. And a “best” theory doesn’t not equate to a correct theory. Darwin was correct about an organism adapting to its environment over time but he was very much wrong on many things in relation to it.

So are you all with me or against me?

Whole-heartidly against.

 

[upant]

one can believe in climate change and still believe the paris executive order is a bad deal.

it is a redistribution plan that allows emissions to continue increasing. china will increase their emission 30% in the next ten years. india will add to this increase.

to all naysayers, the usa will continue to reduce emissions as we have before the accord.

we just get out of the debt mr o obligated us to.

the accord maybe non-binding but our self imposed obligations weren’t

.

 

[abucs]

So are you all with me or against me?

Against.

 

[meltzerboy]

1. This is a meaningless statement. For every “legitimate climate scientist” in the pro column, there is also a “legitimate climate scientist” in the con column. Science isn’t determined by who gets the most votes. I direct you to the 2 unknown researchers who discovered, against the medical consensus of the day, that ulcers are caused by bacteria instead of the dogmatic idea of stress and anxiety.

The climate change debate IS politically orientated. And a “best” theory doesn’t not equate to a correct theory. Darwin was correct about an organism adapting to its environment over time but he was very much wrong on many things in relation to it.

Whole-heartidly against.

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/blush.gif

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren are the Australian scientists you are referring to in regard to the discovery of a bacterium which causes most peptic ulcers. However, in this instance, the prior stress theory of ulcers was hardly based on scientific research at all. It was mostly assumed by physicians that anxiety in the modern world has a link to the formation of ulcers. There are other examples as well, such as the research of Louis Pasteur, who confronted virtually the whole medical establishment in his scientific work testing his hypothesis that microorganisms caused infection and disease. Again, the medical establishment did not believe him, but not because of any real science to combat his claims but more due to common sense, which is hardly ever a valid guide in scientific inquiry. Further back in history, we have Ptolemy’s claim for a geocentric universe rather than a heliocentric one. Once again, this claim was not based on scientific discovery.

On the contrary, the current argument by climate scientists is based on real science, not politics, except in the minds of some conservative politicians. Now this theory, as well as that about bacteria causing ulcers, may in time be disproven. That is the nature of science, which is based on change and conforms to the most up-to-date evidence, even if scientists themselves may be reluctant to give up their own theories, which took so much time, energy, and financial resources to construct. So, you see, there is what we call a “best theory” or a “strong theory” in science, instead of a “correct theory.” Some scientific theories have stood the test of time, but even these are subject to revision and eventually rejection in the future. No theory is immune to new discoveries.

And, by the way, is it true that for every climate scientist who agrees with MMGW there is one who disagrees: an even split? I don’t think that is the case.

 

[Tim_D]

Some scientific theories have stood the test of time, but even these are subject to revision and eventually rejection in the future. No theory is immune to new discoveries.

Then it hardly makes sense for a nation to cripple their own economy over an issue where the theory is open to “new discoveries” and possible “rejection in the future.”

 

[meltzerboy]

Then it hardly makes sense for a nation to cripple their own economy over an issue where the theory is open to “new discoveries” and possible “rejection in the future.”

Does acceptance of the theory necessarily mean crippling the economy? Are there no innovative ways to prevent the latter while, at the same time, saving the planet from potential future destruction?

 

[Kaliaa]

When it means signing an accord that sends billions of our dollars to other countries who can spend it on who knows what… Yes.

We will still keep working on solutions to emissions of pollutants etc. as we have been. That is about being good stewards of the planet and should have nothing to with politics. We might even do better if those billions are spent researching here instead of redistributing it elsewhere.

Saying no to the accord has nothing whatever to do with what we will do as a nation.

It is really annoying listening to people who are running the “Chicken Little” scenario about the US saying no instead of listening to what’s really been said. It’s also frustrating for media reports to disregard the fact that the Pope has stated that every country has a right to control its borders and to take in immigrants in a controlled and orderly way.

 

[abucs]

When it means signing an accord that sends billions of our dollars to other countries who can spend it on who knows what… Yes.

We will still keep working on solutions to emissions of pollutants etc. as we have been. That is about being good stewards of the planet and should have nothing to with politics. We might even do better if those billions are spent researching here instead of redistributing it elsewhere.

Saying no to the accord has nothing whatever to do with what we will do as a nation.

It is really annoying listening to people who are running the “Chicken Little” scenario about the US saying no instead of listening to what’s really been said.

Australia is much the same. Even accepting the speculation (it is not science) on why the earth is warming (that is science) as the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and that this is caused by burning fossil fuels to a large extent and this will be catastrophic (breath, breath)

then every person in Australia committing suicide and reducing their footprint to zero will have virtually nil impact on global warming and the whole of this ‘saving’ will be taken up by China’s increase anyway within a year. So Australia signing up to international carbon markets and forced use of unreliable wind and solar energy and the retardation of the Australian economy with the fall in living standards of real people means absolutely nothing on the world scene.

Australia would be much better placed to completely ignore any international emission target agreements and focus their money on their own comparative advantage. This is a highly scientific community who can research solar, wind, geothermal and tide technologies to produce energy.

If we have suitable breakthroughs producing cheap, reliable energy then we can export this technology to the world. Instead we are going to retard our economy and make us less likely to find these technologies and hurt the people at the same time.

Australia is being pushed against the will of the population to be part of international emission targets and artificial international carbon markets because of politicians and a secular media in search of a government run religion.

These same politicians and media are absolutely against nuclear energy which at a stroke would solve any energy problems and at the same time produce no carbon dioxide emissions.

We have to ask why these people on the one hand prophesise immanent global destruction and yet dismiss out of hand the option of a proven nuclear energy in favour of more global government control with the possibility of some future renewable energy sometime down the track, maybe.

CC is political and most Australians are aware of that.